Initializing SOI
Shared Services & GBS × Chief Operating Officer
Chief Operating Officer Guide:
Shared Services & GBS
For Chief Operating Officers overseeing Shared Services and Global Business Services (GBS) in 2025, the mandate has shifted dramatically. You are no longer just the custodian of cost containment; you are the architect of the enterprise's digital operating system. However, a critical friction point has emerged: The Efficiency Gap. According to The Hackett Group's 2025 research, GBS organizations are facing an 11% increase in workload volume, yet operating budgets are only growing by 7%. This 4% deficit is not merely a resource shortage; it is a structural failure of legacy operating models that rely on headcount rather than orchestration.
The context for 2024-2025 is defined by three colliding forces: the reversal of massive consolidation in favor of risk-diversified regional hubs, the commoditization of traditional labor arbitrage, and the urgent demand for Generative AI integration. Despite 90% of organizations citing cost reduction as a driver, only 41% of business partners believe shared services actually create value (Deloitte). This 'Value Perception Gap' exists because while GBS hits SLA targets, it often fails to solve the broader business problems due to opaque intake processes and handoff friction.
This guide is designed specifically for the COO who needs to close the efficiency gap and transform GBS from a 'black box' of tickets into a transparent, geo-aware operating system. We move beyond generic advice to provide actionable frameworks for unifying work intake, managing regional variance across NA, EU, and APAC, and retaining tribal knowledge. We will explore why 89% of executives are scaling GenAI to bridge the efficiency gap and how you can implement a 'Beyond GBS' model that links delivery directly to P&L impact.
Docs
Data
Comms
SOI Core
Proactive
Opportunity Found
Opportunity Found
Context
Is this correct?
Outcome
Waiting for context...
The Friction Points.
The modern COO faces a complex web of challenges that prevents Shared Services from evolving into a strategic partner. Based on 2024-2025 industry analysis, these challenges have crystallized into four distinct friction points that degrade value and slow execution.
- The 'Black Box' of Work Intake and Prioritization
The most pervasive challenge is the lack of a unified 'front door' for service requests. In 60% of organizations, work arrives through unstructured channels—email, chat, and hallway conversations—bypassing formal governance. This creates an 'Invisible Factory' where GBS leaders cannot see the true demand until it becomes a backlog crisis.
Why it happens: Legacy ERPs and ticketing systems are too rigid, leading business units to use informal workarounds.
Business Impact: Without visibility, you cannot prioritize high-value initiatives. Teams are trapped in reactive firefighting, contributing to the efficiency gap where workload outpaces budget.
Regional Variance: This is particularly acute in APAC delivery centers, where high-volume transactional requests often flood in via chat apps, making tracking impossible for HQ.
- The Regional execution Divergence
While the strategy is global, execution remains stubbornly local. A process designed in Chicago often breaks when deployed in Warsaw or Manila due to local regulatory nuances or cultural working styles.
Why it happens: 'Lift and shift' strategies ignored local reality. A reversal of the consolidation trend means organizations are now managing distributed hubs rather than one mega-center, increasing complexity.
Business Impact: Inconsistent data quality and SLA failures. For example, a standard '3-day close' process might take 5 days in LATAM due to government reporting requirements, causing global friction.
- The Talent & Tribal Knowledge Drain
With attrition rates in key delivery hubs (like India and the Philippines) hovering between 15-25%, GBS organizations face a constant 'brain drain.' When a team lead leaves, they take critical context with them because processes are not digitally codified.
Why it happens: Over-reliance on manual heroics rather than automated workflows.
Business Impact: 47% of organizations cite attracting and retaining talent as their primary challenge. The cost of replacement is high, but the cost of lost institutional memory is incalculable, leading to error spikes every time a key employee rotates.
- The Technology & Data Fragmentation Trap
Despite massive investment, 24% of organizations struggle with fragmented ERP landscapes, and 14% leverage data only for basic reporting rather than value generation.
Why it happens: Years of M&A and siloed SaaS purchases have created a 'swivel-chair' environment where GBS staff manually bridge systems.
Business Impact: You cannot automate what you cannot measure. This fragmentation is the primary blocker to the 89% of executives trying to scale GenAI—the AI has no clean data foundation to learn from.
The Solution
A Smarter Operating System.
To bridge the efficiency gap and solve the intake crisis, COOs must transition from a 'Service Provider' model to a 'Geo-Aware Operating System.' This requires a structured transformation across four phases: Assessment, Architecture, Orchestration, and Intelligence.
Phase 1: The Unified Intake Layer (The Digital Front Door)
Problem: Unstructured email/chat requests.
Solution: Implement a unified service orchestration layer (e.g., ServiceNow, Salesforce, or specialized GBS orchestration tools) that sits *above* your fragmented ERPs.
Framework:
- Triage: Use GenAI to auto-categorize incoming requests (IT, HR, Finance) and route them to the correct tower.
- Policy Check: Automated verification against SLAs and budget before work begins.
- Transparency: The business user sees a 'Pizza Tracker' view of their request status.
Decision Criteria: If request volume >10k/month, build a custom portal. If <10k, use lightweight forms integrated into Teams/Slack.
Phase 2: The Geo-Aware Process Standardization
Problem: Regional divergence.
Solution: Adopt a 'Glocal' Process Framework. Define 80% of the process globally, but mandate 20% local configurability for regulatory compliance.
Step-by-Step:
- Map the 'Happy Path' for core processes (e.g., Invoice-to-Pay).
- Identify 'Regulatory Gates' for each region (e.g., GDPR in EU, e-Invoicing in Brazil).
- Hard-code these gates into the workflow engine so compliance is mandatory, not training-dependent.
Phase 3: Automating the 'Middle Mile'
Problem: Manual handoffs between towers.
Solution: Deploy 'Tower Scorecards' and cross-functional automation.
Approach: Instead of automating isolated tasks (RPA), automate the handoff. For example, when HR onboards a new hire, the system automatically triggers IT provisioning and Finance payroll setup without human intervention.
Measurement: Shift metrics from 'Tickets Closed' to 'End-to-End Cycle Time' and 'Touchless Processing Rate'.
Phase 4: The Intelligence Layer (Data to Value)
Problem: Reactive reporting.
Solution: Shift from SLA reporting (did we do it?) to Value Reporting (what did it save?).
Framework:
- Operational Metric: 'Invoice accuracy 99%'
- Business Value Translation: 'Prevented $2M in overpayments.'
- Action: Equip Tower Leads with real-time dashboards showing P&L impact, not just activity volume.
Comparison: Push vs. Pull Models
- Push Model (Legacy): GBS waits for tickets. Result: Overload.
- Pull Model (Target): GBS proactively monitors data (e.g., duplicate invoice detection) and resolves issues before the business sees them. Result: Strategic Value.
Implementation Guide
Transforming GBS is a marathon run in sprints. Here is a realistic roadmap for the COO.
Phase 1: Mobilization & Transparency (Months 1-3)
- Objective: Stop the bleeding. Gain visibility into demand.
- Actions: Deploy a lightweight 'Intake Triage' tool. Map the top 5 high-volume processes using process mining.
- Team: GBS Lead, IT Architect, Process Owner.
- Quick Win: Eliminate 'email intake' for one major tower (e.g., IT Helpdesk).
Phase 2: Standardization & The Core Model (Months 3-6)
- Objective: Stabilize execution.
- Actions: Implement 'Tower Scorecards.' Harmonize SLAs across regions (with regulatory exceptions). Launch the 'Glocal' process framework.
- Pitfall to Avoid: Don't aim for 100% standardization. Aim for 80%. The last 20% costs too much political capital.
Phase 3: Automation & Value Expansion (Months 6-12)
- Objective: Decouple revenue growth from headcount growth.
- Actions: Scale GenAI for document processing (invoices, contracts). Shift focus to 'Business Outcome' metrics.
- Measurement: Track 'Cost per Transaction' reduction and 'Hours returned to the business.'
Team Requirements:
- You need a 'Transformation Office' (PMO) separate from 'Run Operations.'
- Critical Hire: A 'Data Product Owner' who ensures GBS data is clean and usable for AI.
Global Context
Regional Intelligence.
A truly global GBS must respect regional reality while driving global standards. The 'one size fits all' model is dead.
North America (The Efficiency Engine)
- Market Context: High labor cost, high speed expectation. The focus here is on extreme automation and self-service.
- Regulatory: Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) controls are paramount. Any process change must have an automated audit trail.
- Tactical Advice: Business partners in NA demand speed. Implementation focuses on 'Zero Touch' transactions. Success is measured in speed-to-resolution and user experience (NPS).
Europe (The Compliance Fortress)
- Market Context: Fragmented languages and cultures. Works Councils significantly impact process changes affecting employees.
- Regulatory: GDPR is the baseline. Data residency requirements (e.g., Germany, Switzerland) often prevent data from leaving the region.
- Tactical Advice: You cannot simply 'roll out' a global tool. You must engage local Works Councils 6-9 months in advance. Focus on 'Privacy by Design.' Automation here is positioned as 'augmenting' staff, not replacing them, to gain acceptance.
APAC (The Scale & Complexity Hub)
- Market Context: Two distinct sub-regions. Mature hubs (Singapore, Australia) vs. Delivery Centers (India, Philippines). High wage inflation in India is eroding arbitrage benefits.
- Regulatory: Extremely diverse. China's PIPL (Personal Information Protection Law) rivals GDPR in strictness. Cross-border data transfer is increasingly restricted.
- Tactical Advice: Shift the narrative in India/Philippines from 'Cost Center' to 'Center of Excellence.' Invest heavily in retention and upskilling (GenAI certification) to combat the 20%+ attrition. Use APAC as the testbed for high-volume automation pilots before global rollout.
Latest Insights
whitepaper
The $100M Opportunity: Why Organizational Intelligence Is the Next Value Frontier for PE and VC Funds
The Q4 2025 deal environment has exposed a critical fault line in private equity and venture capital operations. With 1,607 funds approaching wind-down, record deal flow hitting $310 billion in Q3 alone, and 85% of limited partners rejecting opportunities based on operational concerns, a new competitive differentiator has emerged: knowledge velocity.
Read more
whitepaper
The Hidden 40%: How Sentient AI Discovers and Automates the Work No One Sees
Your best Operating Partners are drowning in portfolio company fires. Your COOs can't explain why transformation is stalling. Your Program Managers are stuck managing noise instead of mission. They're all victims of the same invisible problem. Our research reveals that 30-40% of enterprise work happens in the shadows—undocumented hand-offs, tribal knowledge bottlenecks, and manual glue holding systems together. We call it the Hidden 40%.
Read more
whitepaper
The Pilot Purgatory Problem: Why 80% of Innovations Die in Testing
## Executive Summary: The $4.4 Trillion Question Nobody’s Asking Every Monday morning, in boardrooms from Manhattan to Mumbai, executives review dashboards showing 47 active AI pilots. The presentations are polished. The potential is “revolutionary.” The demos work flawlessly. By Friday, they’ll approve three more pilots. By year-end, 95% will never reach production.
Read more
Proof it Works
Navigating the technology landscape for GBS requires a neutral, architecture-first mindset. COOs must choose between monolithic platforms and composable ecosystems.
- The Platform Approach (ServiceNow, Salesforce, SAP)
- Concept: One 'System of Action' that sits on top of all Systems of Record (ERPs).
- Pros: High integration, unified data model, easier for IT to maintain.
- Cons: High licensing costs, potential vendor lock-in, longer implementation (12-18 months).
- Best For: Large enterprises ($5B+ revenue) with complex, multi-ERP environments needing rigorous governance.
- The Point Solution / Best-of-Breed Approach
- Concept: Specialized tools for specific towers (e.g., HighRadius for AR, Coupa for Procurement, specialized HR ticketing).
- Pros: Best-in-class functionality, faster time-to-value (3-6 months), better user experience for specialists.
- Cons: Integration nightmares ('swivel chair' effect), fragmented data visibility for the COO.
- Best For: Mid-market companies or organizations where one tower (e.g., Finance) is the dominant GBS focus.
- The 'Wrapper' Strategy (Hyperautomation)
- Concept: Keep legacy systems but wrap them in a low-code/automation layer (UiPath, Microsoft Power Platform).
- Pros: Extends life of legacy assets, low disruption, high agility.
- Cons: Can create 'technical debt' if underlying processes aren't fixed first.
- Evaluation Criteria: Look for 'Process Mining' capabilities. Don't just automate; visualize the friction first.
Build vs. Buy Considerations:
- Core Workflow: ALWAYS Buy. Do not build your own ticketing system.
- Secret Sauce: Build custom apps only for unique competitive advantages (e.g., proprietary pricing models).
Vendor Questions:
- 'Does your platform support multi-jurisdictional data residency out of the box?' (Crucial for EU/China).
- 'Show me the roadmap for GenAI—specifically for exception handling, not just chat.'
- 'How do you handle cross-tower workflows (e.g., HR triggers Finance)?'
FAQs
How long does it take to see ROI from a GBS transformation?
Typically, organizations begin to see operational stability improvements within 3-6 months (Phase 1). Financial ROI, driven by headcount avoidance and automation, usually materializes between months 9-15. According to Hackett Group data, top-quartile GBS organizations achieve 2-3x the productivity improvement of peers, but this requires the initial 'investment year' to build the intake and data layer. Don't promise dollar savings in Q1; promise visibility and predictability.
Should we centralize everything or maintain regional hubs?
The trend has shifted away from massive centralization. The 'Hub-and-Spoke' model is now best practice. Maintain 3-4 major regional hubs (e.g., Poland for EMEA, India for Global delivery, Mexico for Americas, Singapore for APAC) to balance risk, time zones, and language coverage. This 'Follow the Sun' model provides resilience. Centralize the *platform* and *governance*, but federate the *execution* to these regional hubs to maintain business proximity.
How do we handle the 'Talent Drain' in our delivery centers?
You cannot stop attrition, but you can immunize operations against it. First, digitize tribal knowledge: ensure workflows are embedded in the system, not in people's heads. Second, shift the employee value proposition. In 2025, talent stays for 'Employability,' not just pay. Offer certifications in GenAI, Process Mining, and Data Analytics. Make your GBS a 'University for Digital Skills,' where staff know they are learning future-proof capabilities.
Is GenAI ready for core GBS finance and HR processes?
Yes, but with guardrails. 89% of executives are scaling it, but primarily for 'Assisted' tasks, not fully autonomous ones. Use GenAI for: 1) Triage (reading emails and routing tickets), 2) Draft creation (writing responses or summarizing disputes), and 3) Anomaly detection. Do NOT use it yet for final decision-making on payments or compliance filings without a human-in-the-loop. The risk of hallucination requires a 'pilot, verify, scale' approach.
How do we justify the budget for new tools when we are asked to cut costs?
Frame the investment as 'Closing the Efficiency Gap.' With workloads rising 11% and budgets only 7%, the *only* way to bridge the delta without failing SLAs is technology. Present a business case based on 'Cost to Serve' reduction. Show that investing $X in an intake platform reduces the 'Time to Resolution' by 30% and allows you to absorb the 11% volume increase with zero additional headcount. It is a defensive spend to protect business continuity.
1.2% - 1.8% → < 0.8%
Total Cost to Serve (% of Revenue)
Best-in-class achieved through high automation and global arbitrage
60% - 65% → > 85%
First Contact Resolution (FCR)
Requires unified knowledge base and tiered support model
25% - 40% → > 80%
Touchless Processing Rate (Invoices)
Enabled by EDI, e-invoicing, and GenAI extraction tools
18 - 24 months → 12 - 15 months
Implementation Timeline (GBS Transformation)
Accelerated by using pre-configured process templates vs custom build
The future belongs to the liberated.
You can keep optimizing algorithms and hoping for efficiency. Or you can optimize for human potential and define the next era.
Start the Conversation