---
title: How to Build a Target Operating Model Slide in PowerPoint
description: "A step-by-step way to build a Target Operating Model (TOM) slide in PowerPoint: the four-layer pyramid, People/Process/Technology columns, and resizing rules."
image: https://www.advis-io.com/hubfs/blog-key-visuals/083-target-operating-model-powerpoint.en.kv.png
---

[![logo\_transparent-Apr-12-2025-09-23-39-9623-AM-1](https://www.advis-io.com/hubfs/logo_transparent-Apr-12-2025-09-23-39-9623-AM-1.svg)](https://www.advis-io.com/en/?hsLang=en)

- [BLOG](https://www.advis-io.com/blog?hsLang=en)
- [ABOUT](https://www.advis-io.com/about?hsLang=en)

[CREATE SLIDES](https://marketplace.microsoft.com/en-us/product/advisioinc1760912844242.advisio-202604?tab=Overview)

Consulting Slides

# How to Build a Target Operating Model Slide in PowerPoint

A step-by-step way to build a Target Operating Model (TOM) slide in PowerPoint: the four-layer pyramid, People/Process/Technology columns, and resizing rules.

[Advisio Editorial](https://www.advis-io.com/en/blog/author/advisio-editorial)

 Sep 26, 2026

---

Two weeks into an operating model redesign, the steering committee asks for "the TOM slide" by Friday — the one with the pyramid and the three columns everyone has seen in some other firm's deck, except nobody hands you the actual layout rules. The fastest way to build a Target Operating Model slide in PowerPoint is a four-level pyramid — Vision & Strategy at the top, Target Operating Model and Organization Design in the two middle levels, Governance & Reporting at the base — built from grouped rectangles rather than SmartArt, with People, Process, and Technology running as three vertical columns through the two middle levels. SmartArt's pyramid layouts don't support that column overlay at all, which is exactly why most people who start from a template gallery get stuck halfway through.

## What a Finished Target Operating Model Slide Actually Shows

A TOM slide is trying to do two things at once, and most of the difficulty in building it comes from that overlap rather than from PowerPoint itself. The pyramid reads top to bottom as a hierarchy of decisions: Vision & Strategy at the apex (why the organization exists and what it's optimizing for), then the Target Operating Model layer (how work actually gets structured and delivered), then Organization Design (who does it and how they're grouped), then Governance & Reporting at the base (how decisions get made and tracked once the model is live). People, Process, and Technology cut across that hierarchy in the other direction, as three enabling columns that intersect the two middle layers — because how you organize people, how the process flows, and what technology supports it all need to be defined at both the operating-model level and the org-design level, not just once.

That's the part a generic pyramid template can't give you: the two axes have to line up so a reviewer can read either direction and get a coherent answer. Read down the People column and you should see a consistent thread from operating-model intent to org-design detail. Read across the Target Operating Model row and you should see how people, process, and technology decisions relate to each other at that one level. Templates ship with the grid; they don't ship with content that actually satisfies both readings, which is the work this slide represents.

Governance & Reporting sits outside the People/Process/Technology grid entirely in most decks, and that's deliberate rather than an oversight — it describes how the whole model gets steered once it's live (decision rights, meeting cadence, escalation paths, the KPIs that get reported up), which cuts across all three columns rather than belonging to any one of them. Trying to force Governance into the same three-column grid as the layers above it is a common way this slide gets over-engineered: the base band almost always reads better as a single full-width strip than as three more cells that don't map cleanly to People, Process, or Technology individually.

## Building the TOM Pyramid in PowerPoint, Step by Step

Here's the sequence that holds up once you start typing real content into it, rather than the moment right after you open a template:

1. **Draft the four layers' content first, outside PowerPoint.** Write one to three bullets for Vision & Strategy, Target Operating Model, Organization Design, and Governance & Reporting in a text file or the notes pane. **Common mistake:** sizing shapes against a blank template and then discovering the Organization Design layer needs five bullets where you budgeted room for two.
2. **Build the four bands as grouped rectangles, not the SmartArt "Pyramid List."** Insert four rectangles of increasing width from top to bottom (Insert \> Shapes \> Rectangle), centered on the same vertical axis, so the stack reads as a pyramid even without a literal triangular edge. **Common mistake:** starting from SmartArt's built-in pyramid — its text sits in callout boxes beside the graphic, not inside proportioned bands, and there's no way to lay a column grid across it afterward.
3. **Use trapezoids instead of rectangles if the slide needs a literal sloped edge.** Insert \> Shapes \> Trapezoid gives you the classic tapered pyramid silhouette; rotate 180° so the wide edge is at the bottom. **Common mistake:** forcing long Process or Technology labels into the narrower upper trapezoids — the middle bands are geometrically tighter than the base, so text overflow shows up there first if you haven't checked label length before you commit to trapezoid width.
4. **Overlay the People / Process / Technology columns as three vertical rectangles spanning the two middle bands only.** Give them no fill with a border, or a light fill at low opacity, and set their z-order explicitly — right-click each column, "Bring to Front," so the dividers sit visibly on top of the pyramid bands instead of disappearing behind them. **Common mistake:** leaving the pyramid shapes in front, which hides the column borders entirely and makes the slide look like a plain four-row list once you present it.
5. **Group the pyramid bands and the column overlay as two separate objects, not one.** This matters more than it looks: if everything is one group and a workstream lead asks you to add a fifth sub-bullet under Process next week, ungrouping to make that one edit risks nudging every other shape's alignment out of place. **Common mistake:** grouping the whole diagram into a single object early "to keep it tidy" — it protects the layout right up until the first change request, then costs you the alignment pass twice.
6. **Label layer names outside the shapes, in a left-margin column, not inside the bands themselves.** Add a text box to the left of each band with its name (Vision & Strategy, Target Operating Model, Organization Design, Governance & Reporting). **Common mistake:** putting the layer name inside the band alongside the content — the moment a bullet wraps to a second line, the label collides with it, and you end up re-nudging text boxes on every revision instead of once.
7. **Align everything to one grid before you touch color.** Select the four bands and use Align \> Align Center, then Distribute Vertically. Select the three columns and use Align \> Align Top, then Distribute Horizontally. Do this after content is in, not before — a grid built around empty shapes rarely survives real text. **Common mistake:** eyeballing the gaps between bands instead of using Distribute, which is the single most common reason a TOM slide looks "almost right" but subtly off in a print handout.
8. **Add the Governance & Reporting base band at the exact same width as the pyramid above it.** If governance is being shown as a footer strip rather than a fourth pyramid layer (common when the deck's real focus is the operating model, not governance), match its outer edges to the widest band above, not to the slide margins. **Common mistake:** a governance strip that's a few points narrower or wider than the pyramid — small enough that it doesn't register consciously, large enough that reviewers describe the slide as "not quite aligned" without being able to say why.

The same discipline — draft content before sizing shapes, then align on one grid — is what separates a [MECE issue tree](https://www.advis-io.com/en/blog/issue-tree-logic-tree-powerpoint?hsLang=en) that survives a round of partner comments from one that needs rebuilding after every revision. If you haven't set up a working grid habit for box-and-connector slides yet, that guide covers the same alignment sequence in more detail.

## Why the Middle Bands Break First When Scope Changes

In practice, the Target Operating Model and Organization Design bands are the two that move most as a project evolves — a shared-services layer gets added, IT splits into infrastructure and applications, a regional structure replaces a functional one. If you built the four bands as a single fixed-height stack, adding a fifth sub-row to one band means manually resizing every band below it. The columns have the same problem in the other direction: teams instinctively make the People, Process, and Technology cells the same height "to look balanced," which is exactly backwards when the content inside them is never actually the same length.

**Field note:** the first TOM slide I built at a global consulting firm had six sub-bullets crammed into a Process cell sized to match the one-line People cell sitting next to it. A partner's assistant spent forty minutes shrinking the font until the Process text fit inside the fixed box. The actual fix — making the Process cell roughly twice the height of the other two, since equal width was the only thing that needed to match — took about ninety seconds once someone thought to ask why the cells were locked to the same size in the first place.

A worked example makes this concrete. Say the Target Operating Model row for a mid-size insurer's claims function reads like this: **People** — "Claims handlers organized by product line, not by process step" (one line). **Process** — "New workflow separates first-notice-of-loss intake from adjudication; claims route automatically by value; complex or large claims escalate to a dedicated senior-adjuster queue" (three lines). **Technology** — "Claims management system replaces the two legacy platforms used today" (one line). Size all three cells to match Process's height and the People and Technology cells sit mostly empty, which reads as under-baked analysis even when the analysis itself is fine. Size the row to the tallest cell's natural content height and let the other two cells breathe with more white space instead of stretched text, and the same content reads as a considered, uneven-by-design row rather than a formatting accident.

![Before and after diagram of a Target Operating Model row: uniform fixed-height People, Process, and Technology cells forcing tiny text versus cells sized to each column's actual content length.](https://www.advis-io.com/hubfs/blog-figures/083-target-operating-model-powerpoint-fig1.en.png)

Figure: the same People / Process / Technology row built to a uniform fixed height (top) versus sized to each column's actual content (bottom).

## Where AI Closes the Resizing Gap

Because this same resizing problem repeats every time a workstream gets added or a business case changes scope, it's one of the places an AI layout tool inside PowerPoint earns its keep rather than just looking impressive in a demo. Give [Advisio](https://www.advis-io.com/?hsLang=en) the four layer names and the People/Process/Technology bullets for each one, and it sizes each band and each column cell to its own content instead of forcing a uniform grid — so adding a fifth sub-bullet under Process doesn't mean manually re-stretching bands you'd already finished aligning. It's listed on [Microsoft AppSource](https://marketplace.microsoft.com/en-us/product/advisioinc1760912844242.advisio-202604?tab=Overview) if you want to see how it handles an uneven TOM input, and it builds the diagram as native, editable PowerPoint shapes, so a partner-review edit is still a normal click-and-type change afterward.

## Finishing Checklist Before the TOM Slide Goes Upstream

- All four layer bands share the same center line and consistent vertical gutter — checked with Distribute, not by eye.
- The People/Process/Technology dividers span exactly the two bands they're meant to cross, not the full pyramid height.
- Each row's height is set to its tallest cell's natural content, not stretched or shrunk to match a neighboring cell.
- Layer labels sit outside the bands in a left-margin column, so wrapped text inside never collides with a label.
- The Governance & Reporting base band matches the pyramid's outer width exactly — no visible offset at either edge.
- One consistent color logic runs through the fills (for example, darker toward the base for "more operational," lighter toward the apex for "more strategic"), not six unrelated colors chosen layer by layer.

## Three TOM Slide Variations You'll Actually Need

The four-layer pyramid with three columns is the default, but it isn't the only shape this content takes. Three variations come up often enough to plan for before you're mid-deck and out of time:

- **Multi-business-unit TOM.** When the scope spans several business units with genuinely different operating models, a single pyramid forces every BU into one set of boxes that doesn't fit any of them well. Switch to a matrix instead — business units as columns, the same four layers as rows — and accept that this version gets crowded past three or four BUs; beyond that, a summary matrix on the main slide with one detailed pyramid per BU in the appendix reads better than one overloaded grid. A light shading gradient across the matrix (darker where a BU's model changes the most versus the current state) is worth adding here specifically, since a multi-BU steering committee's first question is almost always "which of these changes the most," and the matrix format is the one variation where that comparison doesn't come through from the text alone.
- **Component TOM (no hierarchy implied).** Some organizations present the same content as six roughly equal components — Functional Process, People, Service Delivery Model, Technology, Performance & Data, Governance — arranged in a honeycomb around a center label, rather than as a pyramid. This is the right call when the message is "these six things all need to be designed together" rather than "these four levels build on each other," and it's built with the same hexagon-sizing technique covered in our [guide to building a PESTEL honeycomb slide](https://www.advis-io.com/en/blog/pestel-analysis-powerpoint?hsLang=en) — size each hexagon to its own content before you touch color, for the same reason a TOM cell shouldn't be forced to match its neighbor.
- **Compressed three-layer version for smaller organizations.** A 30-person function doesn't need Organization Design as its own pyramid level — fold it into the Target Operating Model band as a sub-bullet instead, leaving three layers: Vision & Strategy, Operating Model & Org Design, and Governance & Reporting. Forcing a small org through the full four-layer version usually means padding the Organization Design band with detail that doesn't earn its own row, which is the same instinct worth resisting elsewhere in a deck — our [rundown of core consulting slide templates](https://www.advis-io.com/en/blog/consulting-slide-templates?hsLang=en) covers a few other cases where fewer, better-sized boxes beat a template's full default layout.

[Consulting Slides](https://www.advis-io.com/en/blog/tag/consulting-slides) [Slide Design](https://www.advis-io.com/en/blog/tag/slide-design) [Consulting Skills](https://www.advis-io.com/en/blog/tag/consulting-skills)

## Similar posts

![logo\_white-1](https://www.advis-io.com/hubfs/logo_white-1.svg)

Transform your business data into actionable insights with AI-powered analytics. Get consultancy-grade presentations in minutes, not weeks.

N&E Building, 6th Floor  
1-12-4 Ginza, Chuo-ku  
Tokyo 104-0061  
Japan

[contact@advis-io.com](mailto:contact@advisio.com)

 

- [Blog](https://www.advis-io.com/en/blog)
- [About Us](https://www.advis-io.com/en/about?hsLang=en)
- [問い合わせ](https://www.advis-io.com/contact?hsLang=en)
- [特定商取引法に基づく表記](https://www.advis-io.com/jacommercialtransaction?hsLang=en)
- [利用規約](https://www.advis-io.com/terms?hsLang=en)
- [プライバシーポリシー](https://www.advis-io.com/privacy-policy?hsLang=en)

© 2026 Advisio Inc. All rights reserved.

[Powered by Atlas - a B2B SaaS HubSpot theme](https://www.kalungi.com/atlas-hubspot-theme-for-b2b-saas-software)

```json
{
  "@context" : "https://schema.org",
  "@type" : "BlogPosting",
  "author" : {
    "@type" : "Person",
    "name" : "Advisio Editorial",
    "url" : "https://www.advis-io.com/en/blog/author/advisio-editorial"
  },
  "dateModified" : "2026-09-26T02:37:59.085Z",
  "datePublished" : "2026-09-26T02:37:59.000Z",
  "headline" : "How to Build a Target Operating Model Slide in PowerPoint",
  "image" : [ "https://www.advis-io.com/hubfs/blog-key-visuals/083-target-operating-model-powerpoint.en.kv.png" ],
  "mainEntityOfPage" : {
    "@id" : "https://www.advis-io.com/en/blog/target-operating-model-powerpoint",
    "@type" : "WebPage"
  },
  "publisher" : {
    "@type" : "Organization",
    "logo" : {
      "@type" : "ImageObject",
      "url" : "https://www.advis-io.com/hubfs/logo.svg"
    },
    "name" : "Advisio株式会社"
  }
}
```