OPERATING LAYER
DEFINITION
What I mean by operating layer.
When I use the term operating layer, I’m describing something practical rather than theoretical.
Most organisations can articulate their strategy. They can show you their structure and explain their governance model. But working inside those systems often feels different from how they’re described.
The operating layer is that difference.
It’s where decisions actually move, where trade-offs are resolved and where accountability either becomes clear or starts to blur. You won’t see it labelled on a diagram. It becomes visible in how authority, incentives and constraints interact once real work begins.
That’s the layer I pay attention to.
SIGNALS
Where It becomes visible.
You don’t usually identify it directly at first. You sense it.
Meetings run longer than they should, even when everyone appears aligned. Issues get escalated further than necessary. Reporting increases, but confidence in decisions doesn’t improve. Technology changes are introduced, yet something still feels slightly misaligned.
I’ve seen this in regulated banking environments and in enterprise data platforms where multiple teams rely on the same signal. As systems grow more interconnected, clarity around authority doesn’t always scale at the same pace.
Over time, that gap introduces friction that no one individual fully owns.
A practical example.
In one regulated onboarding platform I worked on, the strategic direction was clear and executive sponsorship was strong. Governance structures existed, and roles were formally defined.
In practice, sequencing decisions sat across product, risk and operations. Each group had legitimate authority within its domain, but no single role owned the trade-offs when constraints conflicted.
When regulatory interpretation shifted during delivery, work didn’t fail outright. Instead, progress slowed while teams worked out who could adjust the sequence and under what authority. Escalations moved upward, then sideways, before decisions eventually settled back into delivery teams.
Nothing dramatic broke. But timelines stretched, coordination effort increased and the roadmap lost momentum.
The issue wasn’t capability. It was that authority boundaries hadn’t evolved at the same pace as system complexity.
DRIFT
What happens when it drifts.
In my experience, systems rarely deteriorate because people aren’t trying hard enough. They slow down because responsibility becomes distributed in ways that make decisive trade-offs harder.
Governance expands in response to uncertainty. Additional forums are created to manage risk. Technology evolves, but the surrounding accountability structure lags behind.
Individually, these adjustments seem reasonable. Taken together, they make the system heavier. Change becomes more expensive — in time, coordination and trust.
That’s usually a signal that the operating layer needs attention.
COHERENCE
What it looks like when It holds.
When this layer is working well, there’s clarity about who resolves which trade-offs and at what level. Escalations happen, but they’re deliberate rather than habitual. Data informs decisions where authority actually sits, rather than circulating broadly without consequence.
Complexity doesn’t disappear. It rarely does. But it becomes manageable instead of compounding.
The system maintains momentum, even under pressure.
FOCUS
Why I focus on It.
Across the roles I’ve held, the most persistent problems weren’t technical and they weren’t purely strategic. They emerged in the space between teams — in how decisions, incentives and constraints interacted once execution began.
Small adjustments in that space often had disproportionate impact. Making authority explicit. Tightening escalation pathways. Aligning sequencing decisions to real constraints rather than assumed ones.
The work isn’t dramatic, and it’s not always visible from the outside. But it determines whether change compounds over time or gradually loses coherence.
That’s the layer I’ve found most worth understanding.