Establish the Strategy Execution Operating Model: Principle 2 of the 10 Key Principles to Master Strategy Execution
- Ben Chamberlain
- May 13
- 5 min read
We have just published the StrategyXF Guide to Principle 2: Establish the Strategy Execution Operating Model — the second of the 10 Key Principles of Strategy Execution. If you have not yet read the Principle 1 Guide, we recommend starting there. Principle 2 picks up directly from where Principle 1 ends — and what it requires cannot be achieved without the foundation Principle 1 is designed to build.
Most organizations that commit to improving strategy execution never build the function responsible for making it happen. The C-Suite agrees something must change. A named executive is given accountability. And then the change stalls — because nobody has actually built the operating model, united the functions, or established the discipline needed to develop the organization's strategy execution muscle.
This is the gap that Principle 2 addresses. It is where commitment becomes capability — and where the Strategy Execution Office moves from an approved idea to a functioning, value-generating reality.
StrategyXF Guide: Principle 2: Establish the Strategy Execution Operating Model
Already a member? Read the full Guide
Not a member? Apply to become a member
The Function That Should Exist — But Usually Doesn't
Principle 1 ends with three deliverables: a value case that quantifies what poor strategy execution is costing the organization, a C-Suite that is collectively committed, and approval to establish a Strategy Execution Office (SEO) with the mandate and funding to act.
What it does not deliver is the SEO itself.
That distinction matters more than it appears. Approval is not existence. Commitment is not capability. The most common failure mode in strategy execution transformation is not the absence of intent — it is the gap between intent and the organizational infrastructure needed to act on it. C-Suite leaders commit, then return to their functions. The mandate softens. The urgency fades. The value case that was made so compellingly in Principle 1 has nowhere to land — because the function that would have acted on it was never properly built. Principle 2 is where that changes.
The mandate distinction "A reactively created function inherits a mandate shaped by the crisis that triggered it. The SEO inherits a mandate shaped by the value it is designed to maximize. One is built to fix something that went wrong. The other is built to build something that has never properly existed."
Why Building the Right SEO Is Harder Than It Looks
Many organizations already have functions that look like they could own strategy execution — Enterprise PMOs, Transformation Offices, Change Management Offices, Operating Model redesign teams. Each performs valuable work. None of them, in their typical form, carries the mandate Principle 2 requires.
The difference is not structural. It is foundational. Every one of these functions was created reactively — in response to a crisis, a program that went off track, a transformation that needed managing, or a cost target that needed hitting. The SEO is created proactively, by a C-Suite that has looked clearly at the value being lost and decided to act before the next crisis forces the issue. That distinction determines everything about how the function is designed, staffed, and empowered.
There is a second risk on the other side. Even when the right function is established, it can gradually drift into the thing it was designed to replace — an overhead-heavy, paint-by-numbers governance machine that the village resists rather than embraces. The SEO must be designed from the outset, and actively maintained, as a lean team of strategy execution architects: minimum enterprise standards, maximum functional autonomy, and a relentless focus on maximizing and accelerating business value.
What Principle 2: Establish the Strategy Execution Operating Model Actually Requires
Achieving Principle 2 requires forming, building, and running an SEO that is right for your organization — not a templated framework imported from outside, but a personalized operating model designed from the inside by people who know the business. It has four connected elements.
Form the SEO and its coalition Establish a lean team of strategy execution architects as the nucleus — internally staffed by people who know the organization's culture, politics, and history. Then build the coalition: a permanent network of functional representatives from Strategy, Finance, Enterprise Architecture, Operations, HR, IT, Portfolio Management, Change Management, and other key functions. The nucleus provides the enterprise-wide view. The coalition provides the functional depth and distributed ownership. Together they are the operating system.
Unify the village around a shared operating model Design the connective tissue that allows all major functions to operate as a coherent system rather than a collection of silos — shared decision rights, integrated planning cadences, and a common view of strategic alignment across the full 100% of organizational spend, operational and discretionary. Centralized intelligence. Decentralized execution.
Integrate the five critical capabilities Build the operating model around the integration of Strategic Portfolio Management, Business and Enterprise Architecture, Financial Planning and Analysis, Project Execution, and Change Management. Each has value independently. Integrated, they create a multiplier effect that fundamentally changes the organization's ability to execute. The shape of that integration — how deep, how connected, how sequenced — is personalized to the organization's specific maturity and pattern of value erosion.
Baseline the leading indicator metrics and build the capability improvement roadmap Establish the value erosion metrics introduced in Principle 1 as live organizational baselines — the ongoing barometers of strategy execution health. Then build a multi-year, evidence-based capability improvement roadmap sequenced around where the data shows the greatest need. Continuously refine it as performance improves and the strategy evolves. This is not a project with an end date. It is the discipline through which the organization develops its strategy execution muscle over time.
The consequence of leaving Principle 2 unachieved is that the commitment secured in Principle 1 quietly dissolves. The village returns to its silos. The value case is forgotten. And the hundreds of millions in value being lost, deferred, and destroyed each year continues to compound — unseen, unmeasured, and unaddressed.
StrategyXF Guide: Principle 2: Establish the Strategy Execution Operating Model
Already a member? Read the full Guide
Not a member? Apply to become a member
The Strategy eXecution Forum (StrategyXF) is an invite-only, no-fee professional community built by and for practitioners who understand the challenges of closing the persistent gap between strategy and results. We believe it requires a collective effort to master strategy execution. StrategyXF brings together senior leaders from across the enterprise: C-suite executives, Strategy & Operations leaders, Transformation Offices, Finance, HR, IT, PMO, Enterprise Risk, Change Management, Portfolio Management, Business Architecture, and more.
Together, we collaborate on real-world challenges, share proven approaches, and shape the future of disciplined and impactful organizational execution. This is not a passive network; it is a practitioner-led community where your experience adds real value. Every discussion is designed to deliver practical ideas you can apply immediately. If you are serious about elevating strategy execution as a mission-critical discipline, we invite you to apply to become a member and help us build something the profession has long needed.
