An operating model is often described through functions, reporting lines, and recurring meetings. Those elements matter, but they do not tell a team how work moves when an important choice has to be made. The more revealing question is what happens between recognizing a decision and carrying it into practice.
A decision has a shape. Someone identifies the question and the moment it must be answered. People with relevant knowledge contribute evidence and alternatives. One person, or a clearly defined body, is accountable for choosing. Someone then translates that choice into action and returns with evidence about what happened. When these responsibilities are implicit, coordination depends on memory, access, and persistence rather than on the design of the organization.
An operating model is credible when the path from question to action is visible to the people doing the work.
Make the decision path visible
This does not require a process diagram for every judgment. It requires clarity at the points where ambiguity repeatedly creates delay or rework. Teams can name which choices are reversible, which need a shared threshold, and which carry enough consequence to require explicit ownership. They can distinguish being consulted from being responsible for the outcome. These small distinctions prevent every discussion from becoming a negotiation over authority.
A useful test is whether a colleague can explain, without relying on personal connections, where a consequential question goes next. If the answer is “it depends who is available,” the organization may have a reporting structure but still lack an operating model for that decision.