Dr Rhiannon Birch, Principal Consultant, SUMS Consulting
Recent thought pieces by SUMS Consulting have encouraged institutions to be positive in thinking about finding optimal solutions to the current sectoral challenges and to avoid mistaking cost-cutting for efficiencies by making strategic, precise changes. One approach I’ve supported many clients with recently is the development of a TOM. But the more TOMs I develop, the clearer it becomes that while there’s a purist view of what a TOM exercise should be, it’s also adaptable to different situations and requirements. In finding those optimal solutions institutions are adapting what works to deliver what they need.
So, what is a TOM anyway
To test how the concept is generally understood, I asked an AI tool to tell me what a target operating model is and why it’s useful. In response it said:
“A Target Operating Model (TOM) is a blueprint that outlines how an organisation can best align its operations to achieve its strategic goals. It serves as a bridge between the current state of the organisation and its desired future state, detailing the necessary changes in processes, technology, people, and governance.
Implementing a TOM helps organisations navigate complex transformations, ensuring that every part of the business is working towards the same goals. It provides a structured approach to change, making it easier to manage and sustain improvements over time.”
But I also asked the AI to tell me when a TOM is not a TOM? To which it responded that “In essence, a TOM is not just a document or a plan; it’s a dynamic framework that should guide an organisation through its transformation journey. If it fails to do so, it might not be fulfilling its role as a true Target Operating Model.”
An adaptable recipe: why Toms work when they flex
And that gets more to the heart of how TOM exercises are used in HE. Like the old adage that within certain limits a good recipe is adaptable, so too a TOM exercise will adapt to what you have in your institutional cupboard. TOM development is often peppered with management consultancy jargon, but when you get behind this, more often than not the methodology allows an institution to deliver something which is not strictly speaking a TOM but which is helpful in shaping future direction and driving evidence-led change. Here are three case studies which demonstrate the point.
A genuine TOM
This institution was keen to develop a new TOM to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its professional services. The TOM exercise was textbook, comprising of ‘As is’ analysis using both quantitative and qualitative tools and techniques, presented through multiple different channels to meet the needs and preferences of a diverse group of stakeholders followed up by an extensive listening exercise with users of PS functions. The outcomes delivered a foundational plan for transition to a fully architected Professional Services Target Operating Model, a suite of evidence on which to continue to build the case for change and to achieve buy-in and a prioritised schedule of areas for improvement activity that could improve the day-to-day pressures of operations.
The key characteristic of the exercise was stakeholder engagement and listening to develop an improved future state with institutional buy-in for the change. It was a great example of the strength of the TOM methodology in pinpointing problems, enabling discussion and designing a future state.
A response to financial and regulatory concerns
This institution chose to develop a TOM over a longer period to allow for the significant engagement needed to reach consensus on design principles and services. The institution’s challenges included financial and regulatory pressures on operations, the need to balance cost efficiency with service optimisation, and a poor track record in implementing major change, despite help from commercial consultancies.
As a previously devolved institution with a strong culture of local variation, the approach focused on collaboration to draw stakeholders together and agree a way forward. There was extensive support for the Executive to develop a change programme around the recommendations which were delivered as a set of blueprints for the future state and an implementation plan.
A rapid savings exercise
At this institution a request for support with TOM development translated to identifying quick savings. The institution had set itself a challenging savings target and needed to restructure and divest staff to return to a more stable financial position.
The TOM methodology provided a structure to quickly review its Professional Services and to identify areas of duplication and areas which were no longer strategically important. It was an opportunity to identify and cull the “sacred cows”: those areas of the business which had grown organically in times of better funding but were now strategic outliers which could no longer be afforded.
It wasn’t a TOM in its purist form, but the approach, tools and techniques provided a structure for the project and wide stakeholder engagement meant that the managers were involved in the change.
So, when is a TOM not a TOM?
So, when is a TOM not a TOM? When it’s more than a model – when it becomes a flexible framework that empowers institutions to address real-world challenges, when it’s a way to bolster leadership capacity by providing clarity and direction for decision-making, when it’s a rapid savings exercise, when it’s a way to explore how an institution can do things better and differently. If you’re interested in how to approach your version of a TOM, we’d love to hear from you and support you in delivering a TOM exercise for your institution.
Efficiencies form
