Ninety percent of strategies fail at execution. Not because the strategies are bad. Not because teams can't execute. Research shows the failure happens in between—in the transmission from strategic intent to operational reality.
You've seen this. Leadership declares "we're becoming customer-centric." Teams nod, then return to building the same feature-driven roadmaps. The strategy didn't fail because it was wrong. It failed because there was no coherent transmission mechanism to translate strategic direction into operational decisions.
This isn't a communication problem. It's a structural one. Organizations lack the operating infrastructure that connects what they intend to do with how work actually happens.
The Diagnosis: It's the Transmission, Not the Engine
When 95% of employees don't understand their organization's strategy, that's not a training gap. That's a transmission failure. The strategy exists at one organizational layer. The work exists at another. Nothing systematically connects them.
Consider what happens when strategy travels downward:
Leadership declares OKRs focused on customer outcomes. Product teams still plan in story points and velocity. Finance still budgets annually by department. HR still evaluates individuals on output metrics. Each layer operates with different mental models, different metrics, different planning horizons. The strategy doesn't just get diluted—it gets lost entirely in cross-layer translation.
This is information loss by design. Your org chart creates serial handoffs where context evaporates at each boundary. By the time strategic intent reaches the teams doing the work, it's been filtered through so many layers that the original meaning is unrecognizable. Teams are left guessing what customer-centric actually means in practice.
The structural problem is deeper than communication flow. As I've written about telegraph-era org charts, we're running modern information velocity through Victorian-era structures. When strategic decisions must travel through approval layers designed for telegraph-speed communication, the latency isn't just inefficient—it's catastrophic.
The 3-Speed Problem × 2 Dimensions
Strategy execution fails because organizations operate at three different speeds simultaneously, and they fail to align both their operating principles (the Operating Model) and their execution mechanics (the Operating System) at each speed.
This creates a 2×3 matrix that most organizations don't even recognize:
AI Speed demands continuous learning, automated decision-making, and real-time adaptation. But what does that require structurally?
At the Operating Model layer: clear decision rights about what AI can and cannot decide autonomously. At the Operating System layer: APIs, data pipelines, and integration architecture that actually enable AI tools to access what they need.
Most organizations declare "we're adopting AI" without distributing the authority for AI to act. That's Operating Model failure. Or they adopt AI tools without the Operating System infrastructure to integrate them. That's Operating System failure. Both must work at AI speed, or you get expensive pilot projects that never scale.
Adaptation Speed requires iterative planning, continuous feedback loops, and empirical decision-making.
At the Operating Model layer: governance frameworks that allow teams to pivot based on what they learn. At the Operating System layer: sprint cadences, retrospectives, and cross-functional team structures that make adaptation the default.
When companies "adopt Agile" but keep hierarchical approval chains, that's Operating Model failure—the authority structure doesn't match the adaptation speed. When they declare sprints but measure success quarterly, that's Operating System failure—the metrics don't operate at adaptation speed. You need both Operating Model and Operating System aligned at this velocity.
Organizational Speed is where systemic infrastructure lives—HR, finance, legal, procurement, operations.
At the Operating Model layer: incentive alignment, governance clarity, and distributed authority across all functions. At the Operating System layer: processes, tools, and workflows that enable the entire organization to support faster speeds.
This is where most transformation dies. Teams move at AI speed and Adaptation speed, but HR still does annual performance reviews. Finance still does annual budgets. Legal still requires three-month approval cycles. The Operating Model says "empower teams," but the Operating System physically prevents it.
Research on matrix organizations shows that successful designs require both clear accountability structures (Operating Model) and effective communication mechanisms (Operating System). You can't have one without the other. But most organizations focus exclusively on the Operating Model—reorganizing authority and responsibilities—while ignoring the Operating System infrastructure that makes those new structures functional.
The deadly gap: AI speed without Organizational speed support equals chaos. Adaptation speed without Operating Model clarity equals theatre. Organizations declare transformations at the Operating Model layer—new values, new org structures, new strategic priorities—without building the Operating System layer infrastructure to make those models executable.
What Good Transmission Looks Like
A coherent transmission mechanism aligns both Operating Model and Operating System at all three speeds.
At AI speed: Decision rights are clear (Operating Model) and data flows automatically (Operating System). When an algorithm detects a customer behavior pattern, it doesn't need approval to adjust recommendations. The Operating Model says "AI has authority to optimize within defined parameters." The Operating System provides real-time data access and automated deployment pipelines.
At Adaptation speed: Teams have authority to pivot (Operating Model) and feedback cycles are continuous (Operating System). When customer interviews reveal that your flagship feature is misunderstood, product teams can reshape the roadmap without cascading approvals through five layers. The Operating Model distributes decision-making to information sources. The Operating System provides sprint cadences and direct customer access.
At Organizational speed: Incentives align across functions (Operating Model) and processes enable rather than block (Operating System). When a team needs budget to act on a validated learning, finance can respond in days, not quarters. The Operating Model aligns Finance's incentives with product outcomes rather than budget compliance. The Operating System provides flexible allocation mechanisms instead of annual budgeting.
This is what Product Operating Models actually mean. Not a reorganization. Not a new framework. A systematic alignment of operating principles and execution mechanics across all organizational speeds. Strategic clarity (Operating Model), operational execution (Operating System), and adaptive intelligence reinforce one another instead of fighting.
Evidence-Based Management provides the diagnostic tools to measure this alignment. Are decisions actually being made where information exists? Are feedback loops actually shortening cycle time? Are metrics at all three speeds actually pointing in the same direction? Most organizations can't answer these questions because they've never instrumented the transmission mechanism.
Three Diagnostic Questions
You don't need a complete transformation to start. You need to diagnose where your transmission is failing:
First: Map your metric mismatch. What does leadership measure versus what teams optimize for? If OKRs say "customer satisfaction" but teams are evaluated on story points completed, you have a Operating Model/Operating System misalignment. The strategy exists at one layer, the incentives at another. No transmission.
Second: Trace a strategic decision. Pick one recent strategic priority. How long did it take to reach frontline teams? How many layers did it traverse? What changed in translation? If your answer is "weeks" or "the teams are still confused," your transmission latency is breaking strategy execution.
Third: Test decision authority. Can a team pivot based on customer feedback without escalating approvals? If not, you have Operating Model authority (teams should be empowered) without Operating System authority (the approval chains physically prevent it). That gap is where execution dies.
The failure isn't in the strategy or the teams. It's in the transmission infrastructure connecting them. Until you build coherent operating models that align principles and mechanics across all three organizational speeds, your strategy will keep dying in translation.
Ralph Jocham is Europe’s first Professional Scrum Trainer, co-author of “Professional Product Owner,” and contributor to the Scrum Guide Expansion Pack. As an ICF ACC certified coach, works with organizations to build Product Operating Models where strategic clarity, operational excellence, and adaptive learning create measurable competitive advantage. Learn more at effective agile.
Ninety percent of strategies fail at execution. Not because the strategies are bad. Not because teams can't execute. Research shows the failure happens in between—in the transmission from strategic intent to operational reality.
You've seen this. Leadership declares "we're becoming customer-centric." Teams nod, then return to building the same feature-driven roadmaps. The strategy didn't fail because it was wrong. It failed because there was no coherent transmission mechanism to translate strategic direction into operational decisions.
This isn't a communication problem. It's a structural one. Organizations lack the operating infrastructure that connects what they intend to do with how work actually happens.
The Diagnosis: It's the Transmission, Not the Engine
When 95% of employees don't understand their organization's strategy, that's not a training gap. That's a transmission failure. The strategy exists at one organizational layer. The work exists at another. Nothing systematically connects them.
Consider what happens when strategy travels downward:
Leadership declares OKRs focused on customer outcomes. Product teams still plan in story points and velocity. Finance still budgets annually by department. HR still evaluates individuals on output metrics. Each layer operates with different mental models, different metrics, different planning horizons. The strategy doesn't just get diluted—it gets lost entirely in cross-layer translation.
This is information loss by design. Your org chart creates serial handoffs where context evaporates at each boundary. By the time strategic intent reaches the teams doing the work, it's been filtered through so many layers that the original meaning is unrecognizable. Teams are left guessing what customer-centric actually means in practice.
The structural problem is deeper than communication flow. As I've written about telegraph-era org charts, we're running modern information velocity through Victorian-era structures. When strategic decisions must travel through approval layers designed for telegraph-speed communication, the latency isn't just inefficient—it's catastrophic.
The 3-Speed Problem × 2 Dimensions
Strategy execution fails because organizations operate at three different speeds simultaneously, and they fail to align both their operating principles (the Operating Model) and their execution mechanics (the Operating System) at each speed.
This creates a 2×3 matrix that most organizations don't even recognize:
AI Speed demands continuous learning, automated decision-making, and real-time adaptation. But what does that require structurally?
At the Operating Model layer: clear decision rights about what AI can and cannot decide autonomously. At the Operating System layer: APIs, data pipelines, and integration architecture that actually enable AI tools to access what they need.
Most organizations declare "we're adopting AI" without distributing the authority for AI to act. That's Operating Model failure. Or they adopt AI tools without the Operating System infrastructure to integrate them. That's Operating System failure. Both must work at AI speed, or you get expensive pilot projects that never scale.
Adaptation Speed requires iterative planning, continuous feedback loops, and empirical decision-making.
At the Operating Model layer: governance frameworks that allow teams to pivot based on what they learn. At the Operating System layer: sprint cadences, retrospectives, and cross-functional team structures that make adaptation the default.
When companies "adopt Agile" but keep hierarchical approval chains, that's Operating Model failure—the authority structure doesn't match the adaptation speed. When they declare sprints but measure success quarterly, that's Operating System failure—the metrics don't operate at adaptation speed. You need both Operating Model and Operating System aligned at this velocity.
Organizational Speed is where systemic infrastructure lives—HR, finance, legal, procurement, operations.
At the Operating Model layer: incentive alignment, governance clarity, and distributed authority across all functions. At the Operating System layer: processes, tools, and workflows that enable the entire organization to support faster speeds.
This is where most transformation dies. Teams move at AI speed and Adaptation speed, but HR still does annual performance reviews. Finance still does annual budgets. Legal still requires three-month approval cycles. The Operating Model says "empower teams," but the Operating System physically prevents it.
Research on matrix organizations shows that successful designs require both clear accountability structures (Operating Model) and effective communication mechanisms (Operating System). You can't have one without the other. But most organizations focus exclusively on the Operating Model—reorganizing authority and responsibilities—while ignoring the Operating System infrastructure that makes those new structures functional.
The deadly gap: AI speed without Organizational speed support equals chaos. Adaptation speed without Operating Model clarity equals theatre. Organizations declare transformations at the Operating Model layer—new values, new org structures, new strategic priorities—without building the Operating System layer infrastructure to make those models executable.
What Good Transmission Looks Like
A coherent transmission mechanism aligns both Operating Model and Operating System at all three speeds.
At AI speed: Decision rights are clear (Operating Model) and data flows automatically (Operating System). When an algorithm detects a customer behavior pattern, it doesn't need approval to adjust recommendations. The Operating Model says "AI has authority to optimize within defined parameters." The Operating System provides real-time data access and automated deployment pipelines.
At Adaptation speed: Teams have authority to pivot (Operating Model) and feedback cycles are continuous (Operating System). When customer interviews reveal that your flagship feature is misunderstood, product teams can reshape the roadmap without cascading approvals through five layers. The Operating Model distributes decision-making to information sources. The Operating System provides sprint cadences and direct customer access.
At Organizational speed: Incentives align across functions (Operating Model) and processes enable rather than block (Operating System). When a team needs budget to act on a validated learning, finance can respond in days, not quarters. The Operating Model aligns Finance's incentives with product outcomes rather than budget compliance. The Operating System provides flexible allocation mechanisms instead of annual budgeting.
This is what Product Operating Models actually mean. Not a reorganization. Not a new framework. A systematic alignment of operating principles and execution mechanics across all organizational speeds. Strategic clarity (Operating Model), operational execution (Operating System), and adaptive intelligence reinforce one another instead of fighting.
Evidence-Based Management provides the diagnostic tools to measure this alignment. Are decisions actually being made where information exists? Are feedback loops actually shortening cycle time? Are metrics at all three speeds actually pointing in the same direction? Most organizations can't answer these questions because they've never instrumented the transmission mechanism.
Three Diagnostic Questions
You don't need a complete transformation to start. You need to diagnose where your transmission is failing:
First: Map your metric mismatch. What does leadership measure versus what teams optimize for? If OKRs say "customer satisfaction" but teams are evaluated on story points completed, you have a Operating Model/Operating System misalignment. The strategy exists at one layer, the incentives at another. No transmission.
Second: Trace a strategic decision. Pick one recent strategic priority. How long did it take to reach frontline teams? How many layers did it traverse? What changed in translation? If your answer is "weeks" or "the teams are still confused," your transmission latency is breaking strategy execution.
Third: Test decision authority. Can a team pivot based on customer feedback without escalating approvals? If not, you have Operating Model authority (teams should be empowered) without Operating System authority (the approval chains physically prevent it). That gap is where execution dies.
The failure isn't in the strategy or the teams. It's in the transmission infrastructure connecting them. Until you build coherent operating models that align principles and mechanics across all three organizational speeds, your strategy will keep dying in translation.
Ralph Jocham is Europe’s first Professional Scrum Trainer, co-author of “Professional Product Owner,” and contributor to the Scrum Guide Expansion Pack. As an ICF ACC certified coach, works with organizations to build Product Operating Models where strategic clarity, operational excellence, and adaptive learning create measurable competitive advantage. Learn more at effective agile.