Baseline vs Target State in Banking Transformation: Governing the Journey Between “As-Is” and “To-Be”

At a Glance

Explains how banks define a clear baseline and target state to guide transformation, quantifying current performance, capabilities, costs, and risks, then mapping measurable future outcomes to close gaps, prioritize investments, sequence initiatives, and track value realization.

Why “baseline vs target state” is a governance decision, not an architecture formality

In strategic planning and enterprise architecture, baseline and target states are the bookends of a transformation journey. In banking, the distinction matters because it is how leadership validates whether strategic ambitions are realistic given current digital capabilities, delivery constraints, and regulatory obligations. A baseline without a target creates measurement without direction; a target without a baseline creates aspiration without proof.

For governance and tracking readiness, the practical requirement is comparability. Executives need to know whether reported progress reflects real capability uplift or simply a shifting definition of scope, a reclassification of portfolio items, or a change in measurement rules. Baseline and target state discipline prevents transformation reporting from becoming narrative-driven.

Two artifacts, one control objective

The control objective is a traceable link from ambition to execution: what is changing, why it matters, what success looks like, and how evidence will be produced at each stage. Baseline and target state definitions are the minimum structure required for that link to hold under audit, portfolio reprioritization, and operational incidents.

Core definitions executives should insist on

Baseline and target state terms are widely used, but inconsistent definitions are a common source of program failure. Definitions should therefore be explicit, versioned, and backed by governed artifacts.

Baseline state (as-is)

The baseline state is the current architectural and operating condition of the organization. It is the approved reference point for measuring progress and for identifying constraints that will shape sequencing and cost. A credible baseline describes what exists, who owns it, what it depends on, what risks it carries, and what the institution can reliably deliver with current capabilities.

Target state (to-be)

The target state is the desired future design aligned to strategy and business requirements. It defines intended capabilities, processes, governance patterns, and enabling technologies, with enough specificity to be testable. A credible target does not merely state that the bank will be “cloud-native” or “AI-enabled”; it specifies what will change in decision rights, control design, data architecture, resilience posture, and delivery model to make those outcomes operable.

The structured transformation cycle from baseline to target

Organizations often formalize the baseline-to-target cycle using enterprise architecture and transformation frameworks, including TOGAF-inspired approaches. Regardless of framework, the cycle needs to produce governance-grade artifacts: gap analysis, transition architecture plateaus, a roadmap, and an operating cadence that monitors variance and preserves comparability.

Gap analysis: making constraints explicit

Gap analysis identifies deficiencies, redundancies, and missing components between the current and future states. In banking, the most material gaps are often not feature gaps; they are governance and operability gaps: unclear ownership, weak data lineage, insufficient resilience testing discipline, and control evidence that cannot be produced consistently. These gaps determine whether the target can be reached safely and within risk appetite.

Transition architecture: defining plateaus that can be governed

Transition architectures break the journey into manageable plateaus that can be implemented, tested, and audited. Each plateau should define what moves, what stays stable, what runs in parallel, and what new controls and evidence chains are required. This is particularly important in dual-run periods where legacy and modern platforms operate simultaneously, increasing cost stacking and reconciliation risk.

Roadmap development: sequencing for trade-offs

A roadmap is not just a timeline; it is a prioritization logic. It should show which capabilities must precede others (for example, dependency mapping and data integrity before scaling AI automation), where the bank will accept temporary complexity, and what risks are being carried in each phase. Executives should insist that the roadmap ties investments to measurable outcomes and to explicit control and resilience obligations.

Governance and review: preserving baseline integrity while adapting

Continuous monitoring is essential because business needs, regulatory expectations, and incident learnings evolve. The governance challenge is to allow adaptation without destroying comparability. This requires version control for baseline and target definitions, change thresholds for scope and metric adjustments, and documented rationale for any updates, so leadership can explain performance and decisions over time.

Why both baseline and target are essential for transformation tracking readiness

Many programs fail not because the target is wrong, but because baseline and target artifacts are not strong enough to support governance. Two failure modes dominate: baselines that are too shallow to reflect real constraints, and targets that are too vague to be testable.

Without a baseline

ROI cannot be measured credibly, and progress claims cannot be distinguished from normal variability. Teams also lose the ability to explain why delivery outcomes differ across business lines because dependency complexity, control maturity, and data integrity constraints are not documented and comparable.

Without a target

Transformation becomes fragmented: local initiatives optimize for their own outcomes, creating inconsistent platforms, duplicated capabilities, and uneven control patterns. Over time, this produces portfolio sprawl and operational fragility, making the next wave of change more expensive and riskier than the last.

What tracking-ready organizations do differently

• They lock baseline definitions and publish measurement rules before major delivery begins
• They define target states in testable terms, including governance, controls, and operability
• They use transition plateaus to manage dual-run complexity and evidence continuity
• They treat baseline and target changes as governed events, not informal updates

Practical artifacts executives should expect to see

Baseline-to-target discipline becomes real when it produces consistent artifacts that can be used by technology, risk, finance, and internal audit. The goal is not documentation volume; it is decision confidence and evidenceability.

Baseline artifact set

• Current-state architecture views for critical services and platforms
• Application and integration dependency maps, including third-party dependencies
• Data lineage and data quality baselines for key reporting and decision datasets
• Resilience and recovery mappings (RTO/RPO, DR capabilities, testing evidence)
• Operational and delivery baselines (cycle time, change failure rate, incident trends)

Target artifact set

• Capability model describing what the bank must be able to do, not only what it will run
• Reference architectures for platforms, data, identity, and integration patterns
• Control and governance design for key domains (data, AI, third parties, change)
• Non-functional requirements and resilience posture aligned to risk appetite
• Outcome measures with targets and evidence sources locked for tracking

Transition and roadmap artifacts

• Gap analysis mapped to initiatives, risks, and dependencies
• Transition plateaus with entry/exit criteria and evidence continuity requirements
• Roadmap with sequencing logic, assumptions, and governance thresholds

Establishing an objective baseline to validate strategic ambitions

Baseline and target state discipline is a direct test of whether strategy is anchored in current capability. An objective baseline surfaces constraints that determine pace and risk: dependency complexity, data integrity, control automation maturity, and resilience execution. A testable target state prevents the program from drifting into fragmented change that cannot scale or be governed.

A digital maturity assessment provides a structured way to evaluate readiness to operate this baseline-to-target system: whether the bank can maintain accurate current-state artifacts, whether governance can manage plateau transitions, and whether evidence chains will remain intact as technology and operating models change. In that context, DUNNIXER Digital Maturity Assessment can be used to benchmark the capabilities required for decision confidence, sequencing discipline, and tracking integrity as the bank moves from as-is to to-be.

References

• https://medium.com/@rashidbaghirov/architecture-states-in-togaf-adm-strategic-transition-from-baseline-to-target-bfbfe984600c
• https://www.productfield.guide/baseline-target/
• https://themindfulmeld.pages.dev/posts/4-simple-steps-to-grasp-baseline-target-finalized-and-transition-architecture/#:~:text=Neglecting%20stakeholder%20input:%20Don't,Mistake%20to%20Avoid:
• https://kvaes.wordpress.com/2013/07/16/lingo-explained-from-baseline-to-target/#:~:text=Posted%20on%2016/07/2013,the%20%E2%80%9CAS%20IS%E2%80%9D%20situation.
• https://medium.com/@rashidbaghirov/architecture-states-in-togaf-adm-strategic-transition-from-baseline-to-target-bfbfe984600c#:~:text=Baseline%20Architecture%20%E2%80%94%20The%20current%20architectural,the%20baseline%20and%20target%20architectures.
• https://medium.com/@piyushraw12/togaf-10-deep-dive-understanding-architecture-states-scopes-and-levels-d1831b2a7cb7#:~:text=The%20Baseline%20Architecture%20represents%20the,starting%20point%20for%20architectural%20planning.
• https://www.ey.com/en_us/services/strategy/ey-capital-edge-mergers-acquisitions-transaction-platform#:~:text=%E2%9C%93%20Set%20targets%20through%20baseline,can%20be%20translated%20into%20targets.
• https://www.techtarget.com/searchcio/definition/gap-analysis#:~:text=A%20gap%20analysis%20is%20a,target%20state%20or%20desired%20state).
• https://agilityhealthradar.com/enterprise-business-agility-jumpstart/#:~:text=This%20jump%20start%20aims%20to%20achieve%20the,develop%20a%20plan/roadmap%20for%20the%20target%20pillars.
• https://www.leanix.net/en/enterprise-architecture#:~:text=LeanIX%20Architecture%20and%20Road%20Map%20Planning%20*,and%20is%20ready%20for%20the%20next%20transformation.
• https://pettersson.dev/transformation/edgy/adm/#:~:text=TOGAF%20ADM%20is%20more%20than,into%20the%209%2Dphase%20ADM.
• https://togaf.visual-paradigm.com/2025/03/03/defining-an-effective-approach-to-target-state-in-enterprise-architecture/#:~:text=The%20target%20state%20represents%20the,enterprise%20toward%20its%20strategic%20objectives.
• https://www.slideteam.net/top-10-baseline-and-target-powerpoint-presentation-templates#:~:text=In%20PowerPoint%20presentations%2C%20the%20baseline,stakeholders%2C%20ultimately%20driving%20project%20success.
• https://blog.bosslogic.com/p/what-is-a-target-state-architecture#:~:text=Target%20state%20architecture%2C%20noun:,not%20second%20nature%20to%20others.
• https://www.inloox.com/project-management-glossary/target-state-analysis/#:~:text=In%20the%20target%20state%20analysis,of%20companies%2C%20organizations%20or%20projects.
• https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/computer-science/baseline-architecture#:~:text=4-,2,and%20Importance%20of%20Baseline%20Architectures&text=Establishing%20a%20baseline%20is%20essential,the%20conditions%20for%20project%20success.
• https://www.productfield.guide/baseline-target/#:~:text=A%20baseline%20is%20a%20starting,metric%20without%20these%20two%20numbers.&text=To%20define%20key%20performance%20indicators,not%20chasing%20a%20solo%20swan.
• https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/baseline.asp#:~:text=A%20baseline%20is%20a%20fixed,any%20number%20of%20other%20variables.
• https://cioindex.com/reference/togaf-vs-zachman/#:~:text=The%20key%20components%20of%20TOGAF%C2%AE%20(The%20Open%20Group%20Architecture%20Framework)%20include%20the%20following:
• https://www.oig.dot.gov/sites/default/files/DOT%20Enterprise%20Architecture.pdf#:~:text=operations%20(the%20baseline%20architecture)%20as%20well%20as,from%20the%20baseline%20to%20the%20target%20architecture.
• https://www.b2blearning.eu/en/blog/129-6-facts-about-togaf.html#:~:text=TOGAF%20(%20The%20Open%20Group%20Architecture%20Framework,the%20enterprise%20into%20a%20target%20operating%20model.
• https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/sites/default/files/docs/2016/10/ds_data_migration_strategy_-main_paper_edag.pdf#:~:text=3.%20Following%20The%20Open%20Group%20Architecture%20Framework,a%20detailed%20migration%20and%20implementation%20plan.%204.
• https://sixsigmadsi.com/glossary/baseline-measure/#:~:text=Organizations%20that%20skip%20establishing%20proper%20baseline%20measures,or%20merely%20create%20the%20illusion%20of%20progress.