Most transformation programmes begin with an org chart exercise, and most of them fail to change anything that actually mattered. Reporting lines are the most visible, most easily redrawn, and least consequential part of an operating model — which is exactly why they get redrawn first.
I've watched banks reorganise the same function three times in a decade without changing who actually decides anything. Each reorganisation gets presented internally as transformation. None of them are, because none of them touch the pattern of who gets consulted, who signs off, and who gets blamed when a decision goes wrong — which is the actual operating model, regardless of what the chart says.
The org chart is a description of intended authority. The real operating model is the pattern of decisions as they're actually made, and the two frequently diverge within months of any reorganisation, because the underlying decision rights were never addressed.
This matters because reorganisations are expensive in a specific way: they consume the organisation's appetite for change without producing a change that anyone downstream experiences. Staff live through the disruption of a new reporting structure and conclude, correctly, that transformation is theatre — which makes the next genuine transformation attempt harder to get support for.
If a transformation programme's first deliverable is a new org chart, ask what specific decision it's designed to change, and who will make it differently as a result. If no one can answer clearly, the reorganisation is decoration, not transformation — and it will cost the organisation more than the theatre is worth.