Operating Model Change Guide
This fictional operating model change guide explains who coordinates cross-business priorities, who retains delivery decisions, and where employees take unresolved ownership questions.
Every employee gets a seat — priced per employee in Communications & Intranet, quoted with this template ready.
Rolled out to every employee at AutoZone (125,000), PetSmart (50,000+), A.S. Watson and Raley's (20,000) — and at larger retailers we are not permitted to name.
Built for: Financial services · Healthcare · Manufacturing · Technology
Overview
Operating Model Change Guide is a filled-in fictional intranet page showing how to explain a change in cross-team decision ownership without obscuring who delivers the work. Its Northstar Group example says Enterprise Enablement coordinates a shared priority recommendation when a customer request affects multiple businesses, while each business team retains decisions about its delivery scope and sequence. The example effective date is 3 November 2026; replace it with a confirmed date before publishing.
The page opens with the change announcement and a concise explanation, then uses a before-and-after table to distinguish what changed from what stayed the same. Role-specific tabs describe the responsibilities of requesting teams, Enterprise Enablement, and business delivery teams. A worked handoff walks through a request affecting two businesses, and decision-routing cards distinguish a cross-business priority conflict from a delivery approach or an ownership-boundary question. The final sections point to connected published policies and explain where to take unresolved questions.
Use this template when employees need a single reference for a specific operating-model change, especially when coordination, delivery, and escalation responsibilities could be confused. Customize it only with confirmed roles, boundaries, effective dates, and help routes. It is not a formal policy, a live workflow, or a substitute for an authoritative policy library. Do not use it to announce a broad reorganization whose scope, decision rights, or transition arrangements have not been settled; resolve those facts first, then publish a page that states them clearly.
Standards & compliance context
- Treat the page as operational guidance, not a formal policy or legal instrument; the example explicitly says it does not define or replace policy.
- Link only to published policies that are connected in the installed site and applicable to their stated scope; do not imply the page creates or modifies policy.
- Before publishing, confirm that the described decision rights and escalation route match approved organizational arrangements rather than inferring them from the fictional example.
- Use accessible headings, readable comparison content, and clear labels for role-specific tabs so employees can locate responsibilities with assistive technology as well as visually.
General regulatory context for orientation only — verify current requirements with counsel or the relevant agency before relying on this template for compliance.
What's inside this template
Effective 3 November 2026: shared priorities move to Enterprise Enablement
This announcement states the fictional change and separates shared priority coordination from each team's delivery responsibility.
-
What changes In this fictional Northstar Group example, Enterprise Enablement coordinates priority decisions for customer requests that affect more than one business. Each business team still decides and delivers its own work.
The change in one minute
Use this concise summary to identify the affected audience and understand what changes before reading the details.
-
For employees whose work or decisions cross business-team boundaries This page uses a fictional cross-business organization to show how a responsibility change can work. It is an illustrative example, not a real company policy. Changed: one team coordinates the shared priority decision when a customer request affects multiple businesses. Unchanged: each business team decides its delivery scope and sequence. Coordination does not transfer delivery accountability.
Before and after
Compare the same work decisions across the two periods to see which responsibility moves and which stays put.
-
The change is about who coordinates shared priority—not who delivers each team's work. Work or decision Before 3 November From 3 November Prioritize a request affecting multiple businesses Each business team prioritized its incoming requests independently. Enterprise Enablement coordinates a shared priority recommendation with the affected teams. Decide a business team's delivery scope The business team decided its own scope. The business team continues to decide its own scope. Set a team's work sequence The business team sequenced its own delivery work. The business team continues to sequence its own delivery work.
Responsibilities by role
Find the actions and boundaries that apply to requesting teams, Enterprise Enablement, or business delivery teams.
-
Use the role that best matches the work you are doing. Requesting teams Own the request context State the shared outcome, why it matters, the requested timing, and which business teams may be affected. Bring useful evidence Share relevant customer context and constraints. Do not assume a requested date is an agreed delivery commitment. Do not reassign delivery A request does not by itself change a business team's scope, sequence, or ownership. Enterprise Enablement Coordinate the shared priority Bring the affected business teams together to compare the request's shared outcome, timing, and cross-business impact. Make the recommendation visible Summarize the proposed shared priority and the reasoning for the teams involved. Do not take over delivery Coordination does not authorize Enterprise Enablement to set a business team's delivery scope or sequence. Business delivery teams Confirm your delivery boundary Identify what your team can own, what it needs from other teams, and any constraints on scope or sequence. Contribute to shared prioritization Explain the impact and trade-offs of your team's work so the shared recommendation reflects affected teams. Retain delivery decisions Your team remains accountable for deciding and delivering its own agreed scope and sequence.
Worked handoff: one request, two business teams
Follow the fictional request from shared context through priority discussion and confirmation of each team's delivery boundary.
-
Illustrative example: a fictional customer request affects Northstar's Business A and Business B. Describe the shared outcome The requesting team explains the customer need, the requested timing, and why both businesses are involved. Coordinate the priority discussion Enterprise Enablement brings Business A and Business B together to compare impact, constraints, and the proposed shared priority. Confirm each delivery boundary Each business team states what it can deliver, its scope, and its sequence. For example, Business A may be able to provide one data feed while Business B decides whether and when to use it. Clarify unresolved ownership If the teams disagree about who owns a decision or handoff, the managers responsible for the affected teams clarify the boundary. Do not treat the shared priority recommendation as an automatic reassignment.
Which team owns this question?
Route a priority conflict, delivery approach, or unclear ownership boundary to the role responsible for that kind of decision.
-
Use the nature of the decision to find the right responsibility boundary. A priority conflict across businesses Bring the competing cross-business request priorities to Enterprise Enablement for shared coordination. Name the affected businesses. Describe the impact and requested timing. A technical approach within one team's delivery The business delivery team decides how to deliver its own agreed scope. State the team's proposed approach. Identify any dependency on another team. A proposed change to the ownership boundary Clarify the boundary before treating the work as reassigned. Ask the managers responsible for the affected teams to resolve unclear ownership.
Published policies
Find applicable Policy Hub policies when the installed site is connected to the published policy source.
Where to take an unresolved question
Use the named escalation routes and include the work, unclear decision, and teams involved when asking for clarification.
-
Unclear ownership between affected teams: ask the managers responsible for those teams to clarify who owns the decision or handoff. Unclear wording or scope in the operating-model description: ask Business Operations to clarify the description. Business Operations owns this fictional operating-model description. When raising the question, name the work, the decision that is unclear, and the teams involved. Keep delivery moving only within responsibilities the affected teams have confirmed.
How to use this template
- Confirm the change, effective date, affected teams, decision boundaries, and the accountable owner of the operating-model description before editing the sample.
- Replace Northstar Group, Enterprise Enablement, Business A, and Business B with verified organization and role names, and revise the before-and-after rows to match actual decision rights.
- Assign the requesting, coordinating, and delivery responsibilities to the appropriate roles, then test the worked handoff against a real representative scenario without adding unapproved commitments.
- Connect the Published policies section to the relevant Policy Hub source if available, and confirm that each surfaced policy applies to the stated topic.
- Publish the page in the appropriate intranet location and direct affected employees to it through the existing site navigation or announcement route.
- Review the page when responsibilities, escalation routes, linked policies, or the effective change date are revised, and correct outdated guidance at its authoritative home.
Best practices
- State what changes and what remains unchanged near the top so readers do not mistake coordination for a transfer of delivery accountability.
- Use the before-and-after table to describe the same decision in both periods, with role names employees can recognize.
- Keep each role description focused on observable responsibilities, such as sharing constraints or confirming scope, rather than vague expectations to collaborate.
- Use a worked handoff to show the sequence from request context through shared discussion to each team's delivery boundary.
- Route priority conflicts, delivery-approach decisions, and unclear ownership to their distinct responsible roles instead of sending every question to one inbox.
- Label fictional examples and sample dates clearly until they are replaced with confirmed organizational information.
- Verify that the policy connection is configured before implying that published policies will appear on the page.
- Keep one authoritative page for the change and update it when responsibilities or help routes change, rather than maintaining conflicting copies.
What this template typically catches
Issues teams running this template most often surface in practice:
Common use cases
Frequently asked questions
What kind of operating model change does this page explain?
The example covers a specific responsibility change: Enterprise Enablement coordinates shared priority recommendations for customer requests affecting multiple businesses. Each business team still decides its own delivery scope and sequence. Adapt the page when you need to explain changed coordination without implying that delivery accountability has moved.
Who is this guide for?
It is written for employees whose work or decisions cross business-team boundaries, including requesting teams, the coordinating function, and delivery teams. The role-based section separates what each group does and does not own. Replace the fictional Northstar roles and business labels with confirmed roles in your organization.
How often should we review or update the guide?
The example does not prescribe a review cadence. Assign an owner and review the page when the operating model, role boundaries, escalation route, or effective date changes. Check the linked-policy area whenever the connected Policy Hub sources or their scope change.
Does a shared priority recommendation commit a team to deliver the work?
No. In this example, coordination produces a visible shared priority recommendation; it does not transfer authority over a business team's scope or sequence. Each affected team confirms its own delivery boundary and constraints. Make this distinction explicit in any adapted version.
How should unresolved ownership or handoff disputes be handled?
The example directs managers responsible for the affected teams to clarify an unclear decision or handoff boundary. Employees should name the work, the disputed decision, and the teams involved. Questions about the wording or scope of the fictional operating-model description go to Business Operations, its stated owner.
Does this template replace formal policy or meet a specific regulatory requirement?
No. The page is explicitly an illustrative example, not company policy, and its policy-links section is intended to show available published policies when connected. Use each authoritative policy for its stated scope and obtain appropriate internal review before publishing real operating instructions. The template itself does not establish regulatory compliance.
What should we customize before publishing?
Replace the fictional organization, effective date, role names, business labels, examples, and help routes with confirmed information. Verify who coordinates shared decisions, who retains delivery accountability, and who resolves disagreements. Remove any route or policy reference that is unavailable in the installed site.
What does the Published policies section require to show links?
The section states that published Policy Hub policies appear when the installed site is connected to them. Confirm that the connection is configured and that each surfaced policy applies to the question at hand. Do not treat the sample page as a substitute for those policies.
Why use this guide instead of explaining the change ad hoc?
An ad hoc announcement can leave employees unsure whether coordination also changes delivery ownership or where disputes go. This page keeps the before-and-after comparison, role responsibilities, worked handoff, decision-routing examples, and help route together. Keep the authoritative explanation current and link employees to it rather than circulating competing copies.
Related templates
Go deeper on the topic
-
Change management is the structured discipline for moving people, processes, and organizations through transitions — new systems, new structures, new...
-
A modern intranet is a specific surface — typically the home-base destination where employees get company news, find policies, and access key apps. A digital...
-
Compare clinical communication platforms and workforce apps for hospitals. Learn how to reach frontline healthcare staff without EHR logins in 2026.
-
See how automated credential checks, labor rules, and real-time coverage tracking give charge nurses a schedule they can trust before every shift.
-
Clinical Staff Engagement with MangoApps: unify schedules, training, and HR self-service in one mobile app for frontline healthcare teams.
-
Healthcare employee engagement ideas to reduce burnout, boost retention, and improve patient outcomes in your health system.
Ready to use this template?
Every employee gets a seat. Request pricing for Communications & Intranet and we quote into a workspace with Operating Model Change Guide ready.
Rolled out to every employee at AutoZone (125,000), PetSmart (50,000+), A.S. Watson and Raley's (20,000) — and at larger retailers we are not permitted to name.
