Aligning a Target Operating Model (TOM) with System Implementation

Aligning a Target Operating Model (TOM) with System Implementation

Systems Don’t Transform, Operating Models Do

When organizations roll out new systems, whether a Treasury Management System (TMS) or Risk treasury modules, the spotlight often leans too heavily on technology. But systems alone don’t deliver transformation.

Real value comes when technology is implemented in lockstep with the Target Operating Model (TOM), the blueprint for how people, processes, and technology work together to achieve strategic goals.

1.Why TOM Alignment Matters

A system that isn’t guided by the TOM risks automating old inefficiencies. For example, configuring payments to mimic legacy approval chains may deliver modern screens but not stronger controls. By contrast, TOM-aligned systems:

  • Provide real-time cash visibility and centralized liquidity management.
  • Embed governance, compliance, and auditability into workflows.
  • Enable standardized structures like in-house banking and shared services.
  • Build trust across finance and IT that investments drive business resilience.

2. Capabilities Alignment: Workflows & Organisation

Treasury transformations succeed not only through systems but through the capabilities that surround them. TOM defines how people and processes must interact with technology:

  • Workflows → streamlined approvals, straight-through processing, automated reconciliations
  • Organisation → clear role definitions between treasury, finance, risk, and IT
  • Decision Rights → governance embedded into workflows so oversight aligns with system processes
  • Culture → collaboration across teams; siloed working prevents integrated outcomes

This ensures systems reflect how the organization needs to work tomorrow, not how it worked yesterday.

TOM vs Tech-Only Implementations

TOM vs Tech-Only Implementations

Chart 1: TOM vs Tech-Only Implementations

3. Best Practices for Alignment

  1. Start with the vision: Define the future-state TOM (e.g., centralized liquidity, compliance by design).
  2. Integrate governance: joint decision-making across treasury, finance, and IT prevents siloed trade-offs.
  3. Map processes to configuration: Let TOM priorities shape workflows and reporting, not legacy habits.
  4. Phase the rollout: Pilot modules (e.g., payments or bank connectivity) to test alignment before scaling.
  5. Invest in people: adoption depends on training and communication, not just system go-live.
Risks of Skipping TOM

Risks of Skipping TOM

Chart 2: Risks of Skipping TOM

4. Common Pitfalls

  • Technology-first thinking: implementing systems without TOM creates costly misfits
  • Over-customization: bending the system to old processes undermines transformation
  • Ignoring culture: TOM requires collaboration, silos block progress
  • No sustainment: alignment requires ongoing monitoring, not just project closure

5. Lessons Learned

Treasury transformations consistently show that TOM alignment makes the difference between systems that enable growth and those that become constraints.

When TOM, organizational capabilities, and system roadmaps evolve together, organizations gain more than new tools, they achieve lasting resilience, stronger controls, and true agility.

Contact us for more information.

—-

References