Why digital transformation breaks at the operating model layer & how leaders can fix it

For more than a decade, organizations have invested heavily in digital transformation. They have modernized platforms, automated workflows, adopted artificial intelligence (AI), and launched ambitious transformation roadmaps.

Many of these initiatives deliver early wins. Pilot programs succeed. Dashboards light up. Productivity improves in pockets of the organization. Yet, somewhere between year one and year three, momentum fades.

What initially looked like a breakthrough becomes incremental optimization. Transformation programs quietly stall, not because the technology failed, but because the organization never evolved how decisions were made, how ownership was assigned, or how accountability was enforced.

This is where most digital transformations break, not at the technology layer, not even at the process layer, but at the operating model layer.

Join the PEX Network community

Don't miss any news, updates or insider tips from PEX Network by getting them delivered to your inbox. Sign up to our newsletter and join our community of experts. 

Learn More

The operating model blind spot in digital transformation

Most transformation discussions focus on what to implement. Fewer address how the organization itself must change to sustain that implementation.

The operating model defines how work actually gets done. It includes decision rights, funding mechanisms, accountability structures, performance incentives, and governance rhythms. When this model remains unchanged, even the most advanced digital capabilities struggle to scale.

In many enterprises, digital initiatives are layered onto legacy operating models designed for stability, predictability, and functional silos. These models were never built to support continuous experimentation, cross-functional ownership, or data-driven decision making.

The result is friction. Teams are asked to move faster, but approvals remain slow. Leaders want agility, but funding cycles are rigid. Organizations invest in AI, yet accountability for outcomes remains diffuse. Transformation does not fail loudly in these cases. It erodes quietly.

Early success creates false confidence

One of the most common patterns in transformation programs is early success followed by long-term stagnation. Initial automation or AI initiatives often target contained problems. They improve a single workflow, optimize a specific function, or enhance a narrow customer interaction. These efforts succeed because they operate within existing structures and require minimal organizational change.

Leadership interprets this success as proof that the transformation strategy is working, but scaling is different from piloting. As digital capabilities expand, they begin to cut across functions, challenge traditional ownership boundaries, and expose inconsistencies in data, incentives, and decision authority. At this stage, the limitations of the operating model become impossible to ignore.

Without explicit changes to how decisions are made and who owns outcomes, transformation stalls.

Register for All Access: Business Transformation 2026!

Decision rights are the first fracture point

In mature digital organizations, decision rights are clear. Teams know who owns outcomes, who approves changes, and who is accountable when results fall short. In many transformation programs, decision rights remain ambiguous.

Technology teams build solutions, but business leaders retain final authority. Data teams generate insights, but operational leaders decide whether to act on them. AI models make recommendations, but no one is accountable for trusting or challenging the output.

This ambiguity creates hesitation. Teams defer decisions upward. Leaders delay action. Innovation slows. Digital transformation demands faster, more decentralized decision-making, but without redesigning decision authority, organizations default to legacy behaviors.

Funding models reinforce the problem

Traditional funding models further entrench operating model misalignment. Many enterprises still fund transformation initiatives as projects rather than capabilities. Budgets are approved annually, tied to fixed scopes and predefined deliverables. Once a project goes live, funding disappears and teams disband.

Digital capabilities, however, require continuous investment. AI models must be monitored and refined. Data pipelines must evolve. Customer experiences must be iterated based on feedback. When funding models do not support long-term ownership, transformation becomes episodic rather than sustained.

Leaders often underestimate how deeply funding mechanisms shape behavior. Teams optimize for project completion rather than long-term impact because the operating model rewards delivery, not durability.

Accountability diffuses as complexity increases

As digital initiatives scale, accountability often weakens rather than strengthens. Cross-functional initiatives involve multiple stakeholders, each with partial responsibility but no clear ownership. When outcomes disappoint, accountability fragments. Issues are attributed to data quality, user adoption, integration complexity, or regulatory constraints.

This diffusion of responsibility is one of the most damaging effects of a misaligned operating model. High-performing organizations address this directly. They assign single-threaded ownership for critical digital capabilities. One leader is accountable for outcomes, even if delivery requires collaboration across teams. This clarity creates focus. It also forces difficult conversations about trade-offs, priorities, and risk tolerance.

Join us at All Access: AI in PEX 2026!

Process excellence without structural change has limits

Process excellence is a powerful enabler of transformation. Standardization, automation, and continuous improvement drive efficiency and quality, but process optimization alone cannot overcome structural misalignment.

Many organizations refine processes while leaving underlying ownership and incentives untouched. The result is optimized workflows that still depend on slow approvals, fragmented data stewardship, and unclear accountability.

True transformation requires aligning process excellence with operating model evolution. This means rethinking governance cadence, redefining escalation paths, and ensuring that process owners have the authority needed to act on insights and outcomes.

What leaders must do differently

Fixing operating model breakdowns requires deliberate leadership action. It is not a technical exercise. It is an organizational one. First, leaders must explicitly define decision ownership for digital capabilities. This includes AI systems, analytics platforms, and cross-functional workflows. Ownership must be visible, enforceable, and tied to performance outcomes.

Second, funding models must shift from project-based investment to capability-based investment. Digital initiatives should be funded as long-term assets with clear lifecycle ownership, not as one-time implementations.

Third, accountability mechanisms must be strengthened, not diluted, as complexity increases. Shared responsibility should not mean shared accountability. Clear ownership enables collaboration rather than hindering it.

Finally, leaders must model the behaviors they expect. Operating models do not change through policy alone. They change when leaders make decisions differently, reward different outcomes, and hold themselves accountable for transformation results.

Transformation is an organizational discipline

Digital transformation is often described as a journey. In practice, it is a discipline. Organizations that sustain transformation treat it as an ongoing operating capability, not a series of initiatives. They evolve structures, incentives, and governance alongside technology.

Those that do not eventually hit a ceiling. The difference is not ambition or investment. It is whether leadership is willing to redesign how the organization works, not just what tools it uses.

The real test of digital leadership

The true test of digital leadership is not whether an organization can adopt new technology. It is whether leaders can evolve the operating model to support continuous change. This requires confronting uncomfortable realities about decision rights, accountability, and power dynamics. It requires moving beyond surface-level process improvements to structural transformation.

Technology enables possibility. Operating models determine whether that possibility becomes performance. Organizations that recognize this shift early build resilience. Those that ignore it repeat the same transformation cycle, with different tools and the same outcome.

Digital transformation does not break because leaders lack vision. It breaks because the organization remains designed for a world that no longer exists.

All Access: Future of BPM 2026

You asked, and we listened. Business process management (BPM) remains the cornerstone technology for driving organizational transformation, according to the survey results featured in the latest PEX Report. As we look toward 2026 and beyond, generative AI, agentic AI, and intelligent process orchestration are redefining how processes are designed, executed, and optimized. BPM is your key to adapting swiftly and effectively in this new era.

PEX Network is bringing together industry leaders, technology innovators, and thought leaders to answer your biggest questions and explore the advancements reshaping business today. And you're invited. Register for free to save your spot now! 

Register Now