Every Strategy Needs an Operating Model

At CivicSol, our team has spent decades working inside city halls and economic development organizations, and alongside the public, private, and civic institutions that help communities move forward. That inside-out experience has shaped how we think about strategy, especially the distance between adopting a plan and putting it to work.

Across cities, counties, and regions, we have encountered a persistent challenge: communities invest considerable time and money in rigorous analysis, thoughtful engagement, and a credible set of priorities, yet give far less attention to the operating model that will carry the strategy forward. By the time a plan reaches adoption, implementation may depend on a dozen organizations with separate boards, budgets, mandates, and measures of success.

All of this leaves a basic question unanswered: Once the plan is adopted, who will run the work?

Even when the analysis is sound, the competitive clusters clearly defined, and the recommendations well matched to the community’s ambitions, shared enthusiasm rarely supplies the structure required for sustained execution. Without a clear operating model, committed partners can struggle to explain who owns each priority, which decisions they have the authority to make, how progress will be measured, or where the necessary resources will come from.

We have written before about the need to turn strategy into an operating system and to name who owns the work. Regional strategies make that work more difficult because the participating institutions rarely share leadership, budgets, reporting lines, or political authority. A well-designed operating model gives independent organizations enough structure to act with a common purpose while preserving the distinct roles that brought them to the table.

Design the operating model with the strategy

The implementation structure often appears near the end of a plan, after the priorities and recommendations have already been settled. That sequence can produce an ambitious agenda whose delivery depends on authority, capacity, or funding that no partner has agreed to provide.

A stronger process develops the strategy and its operating model together. As priorities take shape, the partners determine who will lead them, which institutions will contribute, what decisions will be required, how the work will be funded, and how progress will be assessed. Those conversations sharpen the recommendations by revealing where an appealing idea lacks a viable path to execution.

Federal guidance already reflects this expectation. EDA’s guidance for Comprehensive Economic Development Strategies calls for plans to identify the people and institutions responsible for implementing each action, while federal regulations require measures that evaluate the planning organization’s implementation of the CEDS. Those requirements provide a useful starting point, although the harder work lies in creating a structure that partners will continue to use once the planning process ends.

Turn participation into commitment

Regional work depends on relationships, yet a multiyear strategy requires commitments that can survive changes in leadership, budgets, and organizational priorities. Partners that played an active role during planning may face different constraints during implementation, which is why commitments need to extend beyond the goodwill established during the planning process.

Accountability becomes more durable when it rests with named people and is reinforced by clear institutional commitments. EDA’s Tech Hubs program, for example, requires each consortium to designate a regional innovation officer responsible for governance. Assigning that responsibility to an individual creates a visible point of accountability within a complex partnership.

Every regional strategy needs the same clarity about who convenes the partners, who can make which decisions, what each organization has agreed to contribute, and how the group will respond when an action falls behind. Some regions may eventually need a new entity, while many can work through existing institutions if the roles, commitments, and decision rules are explicit.

Build political ownership before adoption

Elected officials and governing boards often encounter a strategy near the end of the process, when they are asked to approve a plan whose major choices have already been made. That sequence may secure adoption, but it rarely builds the political ownership required to carry difficult decisions through implementation.

The strongest processes engage policymakers when their authority and judgment matter most: setting priorities, weighing tradeoffs, committing public resources, resolving conflicts across institutions, and identifying policy changes that will require formal action. Bringing elected leaders into those decisions gives them a meaningful role in shaping the strategy and helps ensure that adoption carries a real commitment to act.

Political ownership also has to endure beyond the adoption vote. Staff and partner organizations can manage the day-to-day work while elected officials and governing boards remain connected through scheduled briefings, visible measures of progress, and clearly defined decision points. That continuing connection becomes especially important when implementation spans multiple budget cycles or election terms.

Build what the community can sustain

Operating models often falter when communities import a structure designed for a much larger market. The IEDC 2025 State of the Field survey found that 41.3 percent of responding economic development organizations operate on less than $500,000 a year. The Collective Impact Forum, meanwhile, estimates that a traditional backbone organization can require an annual budget of $400,000 to $600,000. For a smaller organization, that coordinating structure could consume its entire operating budget before implementation begins.

Right-sizing starts with the functions the strategy requires. A large region pursuing a complex federal initiative may need a dedicated director, data team, and substantial implementation fund. A smaller community may be well served by an existing organization that convenes the partners, maintains a shared dashboard, manages a modest pool of funds, and brings unresolved decisions to the appropriate boards or elected bodies. Whatever form it takes, the structure should reflect the complexity of the work, the partners’ actual capacity, and the resources they can sustain once the initial momentum of planning has passed.

Carry the strategy into policy and budgets

Adopting a strategy represents one decision in a much longer chain. A community may identify a target industry that its zoning does not accommodate, prioritize sites that cannot move through permitting on a competitive timeline, or assign a regional role that requires an agreement no one has drafted. Left unresolved, these dependencies can quietly determine whether a recommendation advances or stalls.

A useful implementation framework brings those choices into view early. Whenever a recommendation depends on a policy change, budget commitment, new staff capacity, data-sharing agreement, or formal partnership, the plan should identify that dependency, explain the decision required, and assign responsibility for moving it forward.

Five questions to answer before adoption

Before a regional strategy is adopted, every partner should be able to answer five questions clearly and consistently:

1. Which elected bodies or governing boards must authorize the work, and how will they remain engaged after adoption?
2. Who will convene the work, and how will that function be funded?
3. Which organization will lead each priority, and what will supporting partners commit to providing?
4. What will be measured, who will report the results, and how will the partners respond when progress stalls?
5. Which policies, budgets, staffing decisions, or formal agreements must change, and who is responsible for advancing those changes?

A strategy establishes direction and makes choices about where a community should focus its energy. The operating model translates those choices into decisions, responsibilities, resources, and routines that endure beyond adoption. Designing both together gives partners a credible path from shared ambition to sustained action.

‍