Most institutions can describe their FM problems. Few have a clear, evidence-based understanding of what is actually generating them — and fewer still have a sequenced plan to act. The OMAR is designed to close both gaps.

The Operating Model Assessment and Roadmap

Diagnostic entry point

The OMAR begins with the IOA — a targeted diagnostic that answers one question: where is the system breaking, and where should you start? It examines how decisions are made, how work enters the system, where accountability breaks down, and which structural conditions are generating the instability you can see. This is not a preliminary step. It is the evidence base that makes everything that follows credible.

• 6 to 10 participants
• FM leadership and direct reports
• 2 to 3 weeks
• Remote and on-site phases

Output: Root cause analysis, not a list of observations

♦️ The complete OMAR protocol builds on the IOA and moves through three additional phases — each one dependent on what came before, each one advancing the institution from diagnosis to design to action.

Phase One: Institutional Operating Assessment (IOA)

Phase Two: Current State Assessment and Diagnostic

Discovery call

Align on objectives, context, institutional pressures, and scope. Confirm what success looks like before any work begins.

Shared focus. No assumptions.

Current state diagnosis

An objective, evidence-based picture of how the operating system is actually functioning under pressure — not how it is documented, but how it behaves.

Clear view of current state, informed by evidence.

IOA integration

Diagnostic findings are brought forward and validated. Interviews, organisational design, budgets, planning processes, service performance, and governance arrangements are assessed together to isolate the patterns driving rework, reactive workload, and stalled improvement.

Structural conditions identified and evidenced.

♦️ This is the point where an engagement moves from assessment and diagnosis to redesign and implementation.

3

2

1

Phase Three: Target State Definition

Target state definition

Governance conditions, decision rights, role clarity, service model structure, and management disciplines are defined as an integrated system — not as isolated improvements, but as a coherent operating model designed to restore control and stabilise performance.

Clear, agreed future state aligned with institutional capacity.

Gap analysis

Current state and target state are compared systematically. Root causes are confirmed. Impact and risk are assessed. Improvement opportunities are ranked by their likely effect on system performance.

Consensus on gaps and where to focus first.

Priority decisions

This is a critical strategic and operational planning phase. Value and impact are assessed. Priorities and sequencing are confirmed. Resources and decisions are aligned. Leadership leaves this phase with clear ownership of what happens next — and why.Aligned priorities.

Decision-ready leadership.

6

5

4

Phase Four: Roadmap and Implementation

Sequenced roadmap

A decision-ready action plan that enables leadership to stabilise operations, redesign critical elements, and move forward with clarity, control, and measurable progress. Phased by initiative, timeline, and accountability. This is the gateway to actual change.

A plan. Not a report.

Implementation gateway

The engagement closes with a structured handoff — confirming readiness, ownership, and the conditions required to execute. For institutions that need ongoing support, this is where Implementation Advisory begins.Momentum established.

Roadmap activated.

8

7

What You Leave With

Future-state operating model

An integrated design for governance, roles, service structure, and management disciplines.

Root cause analysis

Evidence-based findings across performance, governance, alignment, and decision rights.

Prioritised roadmap

Sequenced actions with timelines, accountabilities, and phasing leadership can follow.

Implementation gateway

Confirmed readiness, ownership, and the option to activate retained advisory support.

This Engagement Is Suited To Institutions Where

• FM leadership has recently changed and the incoming leader needs an objective baseline before committing to a direction.
• Persistent operational problems have resisted previous attempts at resolution and leadership needs to understand why.
• Budget pressure or a negative audit has created urgency and the institution needs a credible, sequenced response.
• Senior leadership has lost confidence in FM's ability to deliver and a structured, independent assessment is needed to reset the relationship.
• The organisation senses that something is structurally wrong but cannot clearly articulate what it is or where to start.

Ready to explore whether the OMAR is right for your institution? The first step is a direct conversation about what you are dealing with. There is no obligation and no pitch — just a clear assessment of whether this is the right approach for your situation.