Hubbry Logo
Shared servicesShared servicesMain
Open search
Shared services
Community hub
Shared services
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Shared services
Shared services
Shared services
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Shared services is the provision of a service by one part of an organization or group where that service had previously been found in more than one part of the organization or group. Thus the funding and resourcing of the service is shared and the providing department effectively becomes an internal service provider. The key here is the idea of 'sharing' within an organization or group. This sharing needs to fundamentally include shared accountability of results by the unit from where the work is migrated to the provider. The provider, on the other hand, needs to ensure that the agreed results are delivered based on defined measures (KPIs, cost, quality etc.).

Overview

[edit]

Shared services is similar to collaboration that might take place between different organizations such as a Hospital Trust or a Police Force. For example, adjacent Trusts might decide to collaborate by merging their HR or IT functions.

There are two arguments for sharing services:[1] The ‘less of a common resource' argument and the ‘efficiency through industrialization' argument. The former is ‘obvious': if you have fewer managers, IT systems, buildings etc; if you use less of some resource, it will reduce costs. The second argument is ‘efficiency through industrialization’. This argument assumes that efficiencies follow from specialization and standardization – resulting in the creation of ‘front' and ‘back' offices. The typical method is to simplify, standardize and then centralize, using an IT 'solution' as the means.

Shared services is different from the model of outsourcing, which is where an external third party is paid to provide a service that was previously internal to the buying organization, typically leading to redundancies and re-organization. There is an ongoing debate about the advantages of shared services over outsourcing.[2][3][4][5] It is sometimes assumed that a joint venture between a government department and a commercial organization is an example of shared services. The joint venture involves the creation of a separate legal commercial entity (jointly owned), which provides profit to its shareholders.

Traditionally the development of a shared-service organization (SSO) or shared-service centre (SSC) within an organization is an attempt to reduce costs (often attempted through economies of scale), standardized processes (through centralization). A global Service Center Benchmark study[6] carried out by the Shared Services & Outsourcing Network (SSON) and the Hackett Group, which surveyed more than 250 companies, found that only about a third of all participants were able to generate cost savings of 20% or greater from their SSOs. At NASA, the 2006 switch to a shared services model is realizing nearly $20 million of savings annually. Further, by the end of 2015, the NASA Shared Services Center is expected to save the organization a total of over $200 million, according to NASA's Director of Service Delivery.[7]

A large-scale cultural and process transformation can be a key component of a move to shared services and may include redundancies and changes of work practices. It is claimed that transformation often results in a better quality of work life for employees although there are few case studies to back this up [citation needed].

Shared services are more than just centralization or consolidation of similar activities in one location. Shared services can mean running these service activities like a business and delivering services to internal customers at a cost, quality, and timeliness that is competitive with alternatives.

Commercial structures

[edit]

A shared service can take a variety of different commercial structures. The basic commercial structures include:

Unitary
A single organization consolidating and centralizing a business service
Lead department: An organization consolidating and centralizing a business service that will be shared by other organizations
Joint initiatives
Agreement between two or more organizations to set up and operate shared services

Location variations

[edit]

It is sometimes argued that there are three basic location variations for a shared service including:

On-shore
Work is carried out in the same country but at a different location
Near-shore
Work is carried out in a close location (e.g. continental Europe relative to the UK)
Off-shore
Work is carried out anywhere in the world that is not on-shore or near-shore

This is not just to take advantage of wage arbitrage but to appreciate the talents of particular economies in delivering specific service offerings.

The difficulty with this argument is that near-shore and off-shore are normally associated with the outsourcing model and are difficult to reconcile with the notion of an internally shared service as distinct from an externally purchased service. Clearly, the use of off-shore facilities by a government department is not an example of shared services.

Benchmarking and measurement

[edit]

In establishing and running a shared service, benchmarking and measurement is considered by some as a necessity. Benchmarking is the comparison of the service provision usually against best in class. The measurement occurs by using agreed key performance indicators (KPIs). Although the amount of KPIs chosen differs greatly it is generally accepted that fewer than 10 carefully chosen KPIs will deliver the best results.[citation needed]

Organizations do attempt to define benchmarks for processes and business operations.

Benchmarking can be used to achieve different goals including:
1. To drive performance improvements using benchmarks as a means for setting performance targets that are met either through incremental performance improvements or transformational change.
- Strategic: with a focus on a long-term horizon; and
- Tactical: with a focus on the short and medium term

2. To focus an organization on becoming world class with processes that deliver the highest levels of performance that are better than those of its peer group.

In the private sector

[edit]

The private sector has been moving towards shared services since the beginning of the 1980s. Large organizations such as the BBC, BP, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ford, GE, HP, Pfizer, Rolls-Royce, ArcelorMittal, and SAP are operating them with great success. According to the English Institute of Chartered Accountants, more than 30% of U.S. Fortune 500 companies have implemented a shared-service center, and are reporting cost savings in their general accounting functions of up to 46%.

The conventional accounting practice used to generate these figures is disputed however by management thinker Professor John Seddon, who argues that the measurement known as 'unit cost' tells you nothing about overall costs. Overall costs include 'failure demand', which is defined as a failure to do something or do something right for the customer.

In the public sector

[edit]

The public sector has taken note of the benefits derived in the private sector and continues to strive for best practice. The United States and Australia among others have had shared services in government since the late 1990s. However, the failures of these projects are increasingly being reported by the press[8] and exposed by opposition politicians.[9]

UK

[edit]

The UK government under a central drive to efficiency following from the Gershon Review are working to an overall plan for realizing the benefits of shared services. The Cabinet Office has established a team specifically tasked with the role of accelerating the take up and developing the strategy for all government departments to converge and consolidate. The savings potential of this transformation in the UK Public Sector was initially estimated by the Cabinet Office at £1.4bn per annum (20% of the estimated cost of HR and Finance functions). The National Audit Office (United Kingdom) in its November 2007 report[10] pointed out that this £1.4bn figure lacked a clear baseline of costs and contained several uncertainties, such as the initial expenditure required and the time frame for the savings.

There are reports of UK government shared service centres failing to realise savings, such as the Department of Transport's project, described as 'stupendous incompetence' by the Parliament's Public Accounts Committee.[11]

The Northern Ireland Civil Service (NICS), has implemented shared services for a number of departments and functions. For example, IT Assist (the ICT Shared Service Centre) provides common infrastructure and desktop services to NICS staff in the office, at home or when mobile working.[12]

Canada

[edit]

The government of Canada instituted Shared Services Canada on August 4, 2011, with the objective of consolidating its data centres, networks and email systems.[13] This followed a tendency to centralize IT services which had been followed by the provinces of British Columbia, Québec, and Ontario, as well as the federal government of the United States of America and some states like Texas. PriceWaterhouseCoopers recommended integrating government data centres in a report ordered by Public Works and Government Services Canada, revealed in December 2011.[14]

Ireland

[edit]

In the Republic of Ireland, the health service nationally has been reorganized from a set of regional Health Boards to a unified national structure, the Health Services Executive. Within this structure there will be a National Shared Services Organisation, based on the model developed at the former Eastern Health Shared Services, where procurement, HR, finance and ICT services were provided to health agencies in the Eastern Region of Ireland on a business-to business basis.

[edit]

Organizations that have centralized their IT functions have now begun to take a close look at the technology services that their IT departments provide to internal customers, evaluating where it makes sense to provide specific technology components as a shared service. E-mail and scanning operations were obvious early candidates; many organizations with document-intensive operations are deploying scanning centers as a shared service.

Many large organizations, in both the public and private sectors, are now considering deploying enterprise content management (ECM) technology as a shared service.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Shared services

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Shared services is an organizational model in which a company consolidates redundant support functions—such as finance, human resources, information technology, and procurement—into a semi-autonomous, centralized unit that delivers standardized services across multiple business units or the entire enterprise, primarily to achieve economies of scale and operational efficiency. This approach emerged in large corporations during the late 1980s and early 1990s as a response to growing complexity and costs in decentralized operations, with adoption accelerating through the 2000s; by the mid-2010s, over 75% of Fortune 500 companies had implemented shared services centers to streamline back-office processes. Empirical analyses indicate that well-executed shared services, particularly in finance, can enhance profitability by leveraging information technology for better data accuracy, decision support, and cost controls, though outcomes depend on factors like integration quality and governance. Key benefits include reduced duplication of efforts, standardized processes enabling faster service delivery, and potential for digital transformation into broader global business services models that incorporate analytics and automation. Global Business Services (GBS) refers to an organizational model that evolves from traditional shared services by centralizing and integrating multiple support functions (e.g., finance, HR, IT, procurement) into a single global structure to deliver end-to-end enterprise services, featuring standardized processes, global coverage, pooled resources, and accountability for performance, resulting in cost efficiencies, improved service quality, agility, and strategic alignment. However, implementation often encounters challenges, such as risks of failing to realize projected cost savings due to overlooked integration hurdles, cultural clashes from centralization, and diminished local responsiveness, with studies in sectors like healthcare highlighting communication breakdowns and the need for specialized facilitation to mitigate service disruptions. Despite these hurdles, shared services remains a foundational strategy for many multinational firms seeking causal efficiencies in resource allocation, evolving from pure cost-cutting to value-adding hubs amid ongoing pressures for agility and resilience.

Definition and Principles

Core Concept and Scope

Shared services constitutes an operational model wherein an organization consolidates duplicate or common support functions into a semi-autonomous central unit that delivers standardized services to multiple internal units, divisions, or external affiliates, thereby minimizing redundancies and leveraging scale. This structure treats the central entity as a distinct , often governed by service-level agreements (SLAs), performance metrics, and internal charging mechanisms to promote , akin to market-driven operations rather than mere administrative consolidation. The model's foundational rationale stems from the inefficiency of decentralized , where each unit independently maintains expertise, , and processes, resulting in elevated fixed costs without commensurate gains in specialization or . The scope of shared services primarily encompasses non-revenue-generating back-office domains, with finance and accounting representing the largest application (handling tasks like , , and reporting), followed by (e.g., , benefits administration), (e.g., helpdesk, ), and (e.g., supplier negotiations). Additional functions may include legal advisory, facilities management, or fleet operations, but the emphasis remains on commoditized, repeatable processes amenable to and , excluding core mission-critical activities like product development or direct . In practice, the model's applicability spans private enterprises seeking cost optimization—where U.S. firms pioneered consolidation to address fragmented support in multidivisional structures—and public sectors, including federal governments implementing interagency sharing for commodity IT or to curb inefficient spending. Empirical implementations demonstrate that effective shared services deployment yields cost reductions through , such as bulk technology investments or vendor negotiations unattainable in isolated units, alongside enhanced service consistency via uniform processes. However, the scope is bounded by the need for clear functional boundaries to avoid overreach into strategic domains, ensuring the central unit remains a supportive enabler rather than a bottleneck, with structures often reporting directly to executive leadership for alignment. This delineation supports causal efficiency gains by concentrating expertise where demand volume justifies it, while preserving decentralized agility in front-line operations.

First-Principles Rationale for Centralization

Centralization of support functions into shared services leverages economies of scale, a core economic principle where aggregating demand across multiple organizational units spreads fixed costs—such as infrastructure, technology investments, and skilled personnel—over a greater volume of activity, thereby lowering average costs per transaction or user. This mechanism operates causally through bulk procurement of resources, which secures volume discounts from suppliers, and more intensive utilization of specialized equipment or software licenses that would otherwise remain underused in siloed departments. For example, a centralized IT procurement unit can negotiate enterprise-wide contracts for hardware and cloud services at rates unattainable by individual business units, directly reducing per-unit expenditures. Empirical analyses indicate that organizations implementing shared services for functions like finance and HR can achieve cost reductions of up to 30% compared to decentralized models, primarily through these scale effects. Beyond cost distribution, centralization enables deeper specialization of labor, allowing teams to concentrate on high-volume, repetitive tasks within a function, which fosters expertise accumulation, optimization, and that decentralized setups dilute across fragmented efforts. In a shared services context, specialists handling payables for the entire develop refined workflows and error-detection protocols informed by broader patterns, outperforming generalists juggling multiple roles in isolated units. This aligns with foundational gains from task focus, where reduced context-switching and accumulated lower error rates and accelerate improvements, such as automating routine approvals to free capacity for strategic . Organizations report enhanced and compliance in centralized models due to this concentrated proficiency, as standardized and tools amplify individual efficiencies into systemic advantages. Standardization emerges as a further causal driver, as centralization imposes uniform processes, metrics, and across the enterprise, minimizing variability-induced inefficiencies like inconsistent handling or compliance gaps that proliferate in decentralized environments. By enforcing best-practice templates—e.g., a single with predefined validation rules—a shared services reduces duplication of administrative efforts, such as multiple units maintaining parallel vendor databases, and simplifies oversight, auditing, and . This uniformity not only curbs operational waste but also facilitates for enterprise-wide insights, enabling better and . Evidence from finance shared services implementations demonstrates profitability gains through streamlined processes, underscoring how centralized converts potential redundancies into cohesive, lower-cost operations.

Historical Development

Origins and Evolution in the Private Sector

Shared services in the private sector originated in the mid-1980s, when large corporations initiated discrete consolidations of support functions including finance and accounting, purchasing, information technology, and human resources to capture economies of scale and streamline operations amid rising costs and competitive pressures. Early adopters in the United States, such as General Electric, Ford, and Baxter Healthcare, established shared service centers (SSCs) to standardize processes, leverage emerging global talent pools, and integrate third-party information systems vendors for enhanced efficiency. The model's momentum accelerated in the mid-1990s as a corrective to the fragmentation resulting from late-1980s trends, which had devolved support functions to units but produced redundancies, inconsistent standards, and elevated overheads. Under this framework, centralized units operated as quasi-independent entities resembling external service providers, prioritizing measurable performance, best-in-class practices, and internal client satisfaction to rival market alternatives while retaining organizational control. Initial focus remained on transactional back-office activities, with reported cost savings often exceeding 20-30% through volume aggregation and process reengineering. Evolution progressed from siloed, location-bound SSCs to integrated global business services (GBS) by the early 2000s, incorporating digital technologies, analytics, and offshore delivery models to extend beyond cost control toward strategic enablement like innovation and agility. GBS provides standardized processes, global coverage, pooled resources, and performance accountability, yielding benefits such as cost efficiencies, enhanced service quality, increased agility, and better strategic alignment with business objectives. European pioneers including Intel, Whirlpool, and Allergan demonstrated scalability across borders in the mid-1990s, paving the way for multinationals such as BP, Shell, Pfizer, Procter & Gamble, and Oracle to globalize operations into Asia, South America, and beyond. By the 2010s, over 95% of Fortune 500 firms had adopted SSCs or GBS structures, driven by empirical evidence of sustained efficiencies and adaptability in volatile markets, though challenges like cultural integration and governance persisted.

Emergence and Spread in the Public Sector

The adoption of shared services in the public sector emerged in the late 20th century, initially through informal interagency collaborations for administrative functions like payroll in the United States during the 1980s. This approach gained formal traction with the 1993 National Performance Review, which promoted "franchise funds" to enable cross-agency service provision, later authorized by the 1994 Government Management Reform Act. By 2001, the U.S. Office of Management and Budget advanced the model via the President's Management Agenda and "lines of business" initiatives targeting human resources, financial management, and grants, aiming to consolidate redundant operations across federal agencies. In the United Kingdom, recognition of shared services' efficiency potential crystallized with the 2004 Gershon Review, which identified opportunities to cut back-office costs through centralized functions like HR, finance, and procurement. Subsequent implementations from 2006 onward established shared services centers in departments such as the Home Office (yielding £13 million in annual savings) and the Ministry of Justice (£20 million annually), positioning the UK as an early European leader in public sector applications. The 2010 coalition government accelerated adoption amid fiscal constraints, targeting consolidation of £2.5 billion in annual departmental spending on support services by 2011. The model spread globally in the , driven by similar pressures for and in . Poland saw its first shared services centers emerge at the century's start, aligning with post-communist reforms. In , discussions began in the late , culminating in the 2012 Central Agencies Shared Services initiative among core bodies. By the late , early growth was evident across U.S. states, local governments, and international counterparts, as documented in analyses of cross-border efficiencies, though implementations often faced hurdles like silos and resistance to centralization. This diffusion reflected a broader shift toward New Public Management principles, emphasizing market-like efficiencies in taxpayer-funded operations.

Organizational Models

In-House versus Outsourced Structures

In shared services, in-house structures refer to captive shared service centers (SSCs) operated internally by the organization, centralizing functions such as finance, HR, and IT to serve multiple business units while retaining full ownership and management. These models emphasize internal governance and process standardization without external dependencies. Outsourced structures, conversely, involve contracting third-party providers, often through business process outsourcing (BPO), to deliver shared services externally, leveraging vendor expertise and infrastructure. In-house SSCs offer heightened control over operations, enabling customization to proprietary processes, enhanced , and alignment with , which mitigates risks associated with vendor misalignment. However, they demand substantial upfront investments in facilities, , and talent acquisition, with setup times typically spanning 4-8 months and payback periods exceeding four years due to elevated labor costs—often 30-50% higher than market alternatives—and ongoing internal overheads. Empirical analyses indicate that captive models foster long-term retention but may underperform in without significant internal resources. Outsourced models prioritize cost efficiency and speed, accessing vendor economies of scale, specialized skills, and offshore labor pools, which facilitate rapid implementation and flexibility in scaling services to demand fluctuations. Studies report average cost savings of approximately 15% over fully in-house operations, with offshore BPO often 5-15% cheaper than equivalent captive setups when factoring total ownership costs including salaries and rentals. Drawbacks include diminished direct control, potential quality variability from vendor performance, and exposure to contractual rigidities or geopolitical risks in provider locations.
AspectIn-House (Captive SSC)Outsourced (BPO)
Initial InvestmentHigh (facilities, hiring, training)Low (vendor infrastructure utilized)
Ongoing CostsHigher labor (30-50% premium)Lower via scale and offshore (15% avg. savings)
Control & CustomizationFull ownership, tailored processesLimited, vendor-standardized
Implementation Time4-8 monthsFaster (weeks to months)
ScalabilityConstrained by internal capacityHigh, demand-driven flexibility
RisksInternal complacency, underutilizationVendor dependency, data breaches
The choice between models hinges on strategic priorities: in-house suits scenarios demanding protection or , as seen in sectors like where control outweighs immediate savings, while excels for transactional functions seeking quick transformation and cost arbitrage. Hybrid approaches, blending in-house for core oversight with for routine tasks, have gained traction to balance these trade-offs, though empirical outcomes vary by organizational maturity and process complexity.

Governance and Commercial Frameworks

Governance frameworks in shared services organizations emphasize structured oversight to align centralized functions with enterprise objectives, typically featuring steering committees or shared services boards composed of senior executives from business units and support functions. These bodies convene periodically to define service catalogs, establish performance metrics, and resolve cross-functional issues, fostering joint accountability and preventing siloed decision-making. In global business services models, governance integrates in-house shared services with outsourcing elements through enterprise-wide structures like vendor management organizations, which oversee handoffs, mitigate risks, and tie executive compensation to service outcomes for sustained value delivery. Key governance processes include the development of service level agreements (SLAs), which are concise documents—often 1-3 pages—specifying deliverables, response times, and escalation procedures to ensure transparency and enforceability across internal clients. Effective frameworks prioritize end-to-end process ownership, leveraging technology such as systems for real-time visibility into metrics like cycle times and error rates, while addressing challenges like geographic fragmentation through standardized controls. In applications, such as U.S. federal shared services, governance boards comprising agency executives coordinate policy alignment and resource allocation, as exemplified by the Shared Services Governance Board established to standardize IT and HR functions across agencies. Commercial frameworks operationalize shared services by introducing internal market dynamics, often through pricing models that allocate costs via fully loaded methodologies—distributing direct and indirect expenses proportionally—or budgeted fixed rates to incentivize efficiency and simulate external competition. These models encourage business units to optimize usage, with studies indicating can capture up to 40% of total cost savings by prompting reevaluation of service needs. For outsourced variants, commercial structures incorporate outcome-based contracts with vendors, linking payments to predefined KPIs within SLAs, such as uptime guarantees or accuracy thresholds exceeding 99%, to align incentives and minimize value leakage from suboptimal performance. Such frameworks require robust invoicing tied to actual consumption, enabling scalable service tiers that balance cost recovery with strategic flexibility.

Implementation Practices

Location Strategies and Global Variations

Location strategies for shared services centers prioritize a trade-off between cost minimization—primarily through lower labor expenses—and factors enabling high-quality delivery, such as talent pools, reliability, and regulatory environments. Organizations typically evaluate onshore options for proximity to and cultural alignment, nearshore for time-zone compatibility and reduced travel costs, and offshore for maximum savings in wage , though the latter introduces risks like communication barriers and talent retention challenges. analysis identifies four location clusters—mature low-cost, emerging low-cost, high-talent onshore, and hybrid—guiding selections based on service maturity and needs. Primary influences on site choice include labor quality and availability, which demand access to educated workforces proficient in processes like finance and IT; competitive saturation, to avoid talent poaching; business climate factors such as tax incentives and ease of doing business; and infrastructure elements like real estate costs and connectivity. Political stability and quality-of-life amenities further mitigate attrition risks, as evidenced by preferences for locations with supportive ecosystems for global business services. Deloitte's surveys highlight how these elements drive decisions toward multi-site models, with 27% of centers serving three or more continents by 2019, up from 19% in 2015, to enhance resilience against disruptions. Global variations reflect regional strengths: leads as the preferred destination for offshore operations due to its vast English-speaking talent base and established hubs in cities like Bangalore and Hyderabad, hosting thousands of centers focused on IT and . The follows for similar BPO-scale advantages, while dominates in for European multinationals, offering skilled bilingual labor and regulatory alignment at 30-50% lower costs than . Nearshoring trends favor Latin American sites like and for North American firms, emphasizing judgment-based services amid U.S. labor shortages, whereas emerging Asian options like gain traction for manufacturing-adjacent shared services. These patterns underscore a shift toward diversified footprints, with nearshore and multi-location strategies rising post-2020 supply chain disruptions to balance cost with agility.

Benchmarking, Metrics, and Performance Measurement

Organizations implementing shared services centers (SSCs) employ benchmarking to compare their operational performance against industry peers or best-in-class standards, often using external databases such as those from APQC or Peeriosity to identify gaps in efficiency and cost. This process typically involves selecting comparable metrics across finance, HR, or IT functions, with annual surveys revealing median benchmarks like 10-15 invoices processed per full-time equivalent (FTE) employee in accounts payable for top-quartile performers. Benchmarking enables causal assessment of whether centralization yields scale advantages, but requires adjusting for variables like transaction volume and regional labor costs to avoid misleading comparisons. Key performance indicators (KPIs) in shared services are categorized into financial, operational efficiency, quality, and customer satisfaction metrics to provide a balanced view of performance. Financial KPIs focus on cost metrics such as total cost per transaction or FTE cost, which averaged $25-35 per invoice in finance SSCs as of 2023 benchmarks. Operational efficiency is measured by throughput indicators like transactions per FTE or cycle time reduction, with leading organizations achieving 20-30% improvements post-centralization through automation. Quality metrics include error rates (targeting under 1% for payroll processing) and compliance adherence, while customer satisfaction is gauged via service level agreements (SLAs) met (e.g., 95% on-time resolution) and Net Promoter Scores.
CategoryExample KPITypical Benchmark (Top Performers)Source Context
FinancialCost per transaction$20-30 for procure-to-payAPQC finance SSC data, 2025
EfficiencyTransactions per FTE12,000-15,000 annually in APShared services industry surveys
QualityError rate<0.5% for invoice processingPwC shared services analysis
CustomerSLA compliance98% on response timeSSON KPI frameworks
Performance measurement frameworks, such as those outlined by Chazey Partners, emphasize a hierarchy of leading (predictive) and lagging (outcome) indicators, integrated into dashboards for real-time monitoring. In public sector applications, federal guidelines stress aligning metrics with strategic objectives, like the U.S. Shared Services Leadership Coalition's use of payroll accuracy (targeting 99.5%) as a core indicator. Empirical validation from studies shows that rigorous metric tracking correlates with 10-15% profitability gains via improved working capital efficiency in finance SSCs, though inconsistent application can obscure true causal benefits.

Sector-Specific Applications

Private Sector Deployments and Outcomes

Shared services deployments in the private sector began gaining prominence in the late 1980s and 1990s among multinational corporations seeking to centralize back-office functions such as finance, human resources, and information technology to leverage economies of scale and standardize processes. Pioneering firms like established global operations centers focusing on finance, HR, and supply chain management, resulting in annual cost savings in the millions of dollars, enhanced operational agility, and improved data accuracy through process consolidation. Procter & Gamble advanced this model with its Global Business Services organization, which integrates IT, HR, finance, and customer support across operations, yielding over $900 million in annual savings via process standardization and enabling faster decision-making. Similarly, Coca-Cola centralized finance functions including accounts payable, receivable, and reporting, achieving millions in annual cost reductions, greater financial transparency, and strengthened regulatory compliance. Unilever deployed regional shared services centers for HR, IT, and finance, delivering 15-20% cost savings in back-office activities by reducing redundancies and optimizing resource allocation. Nestlé implemented shared services for finance, procurement, and supply chain, which cut procurement costs by 20% and streamlined global operations through unified platforms and vendor management. Across these deployments, empirical outcomes consistently show cost reductions of 20-50% in targeted functions, driven by labor arbitrage, automation, and standardization, though realization depends on effective governance and technology integration. PwC analysis indicates that over 30% savings are achievable, with 49% of organizations meeting or exceeding targets, alongside efficiency gains such as 30% productivity boosts from robotic process automation in transactional tasks. These outcomes extend beyond costs to include service quality improvements, with 70% of internal customers rating shared services as good or very good, and operational stabilization typically within one year of implementation for 76% of cases. However, success varies by model maturity; mature centers evolve into global business services encompassing end-to-end processes, further enhancing value but requiring ongoing investment in skills and technology to mitigate risks like staff turnover exceeding 10% annually.

Public Sector Initiatives and Results

In the United Kingdom, central government launched a Shared Services Strategy in March 2021 to consolidate HR and finance functions across 18 departments and over 100 arm's-length bodies into five clusters, utilizing cloud-based platforms to standardize processes and reduce duplication. This initiative projected £1.8 billion in savings over 15 years, comprising £500 million in direct financial reductions and £1.3 billion in efficiencies from avoiding £1.7 billion in siloed system replacements, with full operational delivery targeted by 2023 and cloud migration extended to 2028. However, the National Audit Office reported in 2022 that prior shared services efforts since 2016 had failed to achieve anticipated savings due to inadequate data convergence and governance gaps, casting doubt on the strategy's value for money despite 10-15% operating cost reduction targets. At the local level in the UK, 626 shared service partnerships among councils generated over £1.34 billion in cumulative efficiency savings by 2019, with nearly £200 million achieved annually in 2018/2019 through collaborative delivery of back-office functions like procurement and IT. These arrangements emphasized economies of scale but faced implementation hurdles, including service disruptions in some ICT-focused collaborations, as documented in analyses of unsuccessful local pilots. In the United States, federal agencies pursued shared services through providers like the and Treasury Franchise Fund, focusing on administrative functions such as financial management and HR. The NASA Shared Services Center, established in the early 2000s, delivered $6.6 million in annual savings and a $100 million return on investment over 10 years by centralizing finance and procurement. Similarly, the 's IT consolidation yielded over $10 million in savings via resource aggregation. Yet, initiatives like those at the Department of Homeland Security and Interior Department faltered around 2017 due to poor program management, inexperienced staffing, and transparency deficits, resulting in abandoned efforts without realized efficiencies. Internationally, Queensland, Australia's government shared services model saved $71 million by 2006-2007 through transaction standardization, informing public sector benchmarks of 20-40% potential cost reductions when supported by strong governance. Empirical reviews, however, indicate mixed outcomes, with savings often offset by upfront investments and coordination costs, as seen in studies where cooperation elevated expenses absent sufficient scale. Success hinged on factors like senior sponsorship and phased rollouts, while failures stemmed from resistance and unmet standardization prerequisites.

Empirical Evidence of Benefits

Quantified Cost Reductions and Efficiency Metrics

Empirical studies and surveys indicate that shared services implementations frequently yield measurable cost reductions, typically through economies of scale, process standardization, and workforce optimization, though outcomes depend on factors such as scope, governance, and execution quality. A 2014 analysis of shared services projects across sectors reported median labor cost savings of 17%, with top-quartile performers achieving 34%, alongside average full-time equivalent (FTE) reductions of 22%. In public sector applications, average labor cost savings reached 11%, with 29% FTE reductions and $1,577 in annual savings per employee served. Deloitte's 2025 Global Business Services Survey found that approximately 50% of organizations realized over 20% average savings from global business services (GBS) operations, emphasizing the role of digital enablement and governance in sustaining these gains. Case studies from government entities provide concrete illustrations of these benefits. The U.S. Postal Service achieved $71.4 million in savings and a 16-18% reduction in finance function costs through shared services consolidation. NASA's Shared Services Center projected $6.6 million in annual savings, delivering a $100 million return on investment over 10 years. In the United Kingdom, shared HR and finance services targeted 20% annual cost reductions, equating to £1.4 billion from a £7.7 billion budget. Private sector examples similarly demonstrate efficiency gains. A financial services organization realized $20 million in cost savings via a global shared services strategy focused on process optimization. In insurance, a shared services model yielded $13 million in savings by streamlining operations. Efficiency metrics often include headcount reductions, with one survey noting a 15% drop in the first 12 months of shared services center (SSC) operation.
Sector/ApplicationKey MetricSavings AchievedSource
Public Sector (General)Labor Costs11% average
ManufacturingFTE Reduction26% average
HealthcareLabor Costs46% average
GBS OrganizationsOverall Savings>20% for 50% of respondents
U.S. Postal ServiceFinance Costs16-18% reduction ($71.4M total)
These metrics underscore causal links between shared services and cost efficiencies, driven by reduced duplication and standardized processes, though sustained realization requires robust performance measurement.

Standardization Effects and Operational Improvements

Standardization in shared services entails the adoption of uniform processes, policies, and technologies across consolidated support functions such as finance, human resources, and information technology, minimizing variations that arise in decentralized models. This approach facilitates centralized control and formalization, enabling consistent application of best practices and reducing ad-hoc decision-making at the business unit level. Empirical reviews indicate that such standardization enhances operational predictability by aligning workflows with predefined protocols, which supports scalability as organizations expand without proportional increases in complexity. Key effects include diminished process variability, which lowers error rates and improves compliance with regulatory standards through automated checks and audits. For instance, standardized financial reporting in shared services centers has been linked to more timely and accurate , aiding by eliminating discrepancies from disparate systems. Additionally, it promotes via simplified training programs, as employees master a single set of procedures rather than multiple localized variants, thereby reducing onboarding times and skill gaps. Operational improvements manifest in measurable efficiency gains, with studies reporting cost reductions of up to 30% in firms implementing shared services compared to traditional structures, attributable in part to standardized workflows that optimize resource allocation. Finance shared services, for example, enhance working capital efficiency by streamlining invoice processing and cash management, indirectly boosting profitability through faster cycle times and reduced idle capital. In practice, organizations leveraging standardization have achieved productivity uplifts, such as 15% improvements in transaction volumes per employee in shared services environments, driven by eliminated redundancies and consistent performance benchmarks. Further benefits include elevated service quality via performance metrics tied to standardized outputs, such as reduced processing errors and higher first-time resolution rates in HR and procurement functions. Case evidence from multinational implementations shows that non-technological standardization efforts alone can account for over 40% of operational enhancements, including quicker adaptation to volume fluctuations without service disruptions. These improvements, however, hinge on rigorous initial process mapping to ensure standardization does not rigidify adaptive capabilities in dynamic environments.

Criticisms and Empirical Challenges

Economic Costs and Hidden Inefficiencies

The implementation of shared services models often entails significant upfront economic costs that surpass initial projections, primarily due to complexities in organizational , technology integration, and . For instance, in , a shared services initiative experienced a budget overrun of AUD 362 million, attributed to and internal resistance that prolonged the transition timeline. Similarly, the government's shared services program incurred £94 million in costs over 2.5 years for business changes and platform development, yielding only £90 million in savings to date, with widespread delays averaging 14 months per migration and just two of 26 organizations completing the shift by April 2016. These overruns stem from underestimation of setup expenses, including process redesign and staff retraining, which can erode anticipated before benefits materialize. Hidden inefficiencies further compound these costs through elevated transaction expenses and operational redundancies that are not immediately apparent. Establishing shared services requires extensive documentation, contracting, and mechanisms, increasing administrative burdens and potentially negating scale advantages, as noted in critiques of audits highlighting unaccounted coordination overheads. A common inefficiency involves the emergence of "shadow" teams within business units, which duplicate shared functions to preserve local , leading to indirect costs from fragmented and missed synergies; surveys indicate that up to two-thirds of transactional processes, such as and payable, remain outside centralized models despite implementation efforts. Moreover, lack of and perpetuates manual rework, inflating per-transaction costs and fostering opportunity expenses by diverting resources from alternative efficiency measures like targeted . Empirical analyses reveal that net cost reductions are elusive and service-specific, with transaction and coordination costs often offsetting gains. Aldag, Warner, and Bel (2020) examined inter-local sharing across 12 U.S. services using 1996–2016 cost data from New York State, finding savings in scalable functions like solid waste and police but cost increases in coordination-intensive areas such as elder services and planning/zoning, where administrative intensity amplified inefficiencies over time. In public sector collaborations, such sharing has been linked to overall cost escalation, partially explained by upfront capacity investments that fail to yield proportional returns, underscoring how theoretical scale benefits falter against real-world governance frictions. These patterns highlight a causal disconnect between promised standardization efficiencies and persistent hidden drags like reduced decision agility and quality trade-offs from one-size-fits-all processes.

Organizational Resistance and Service Quality Issues

Organizational resistance to shared services implementations often stems from business units' perceived loss of control over localized functions and fears of reduced headcounts, leading to incomplete transitions where up to two-thirds of transactional work remains decentralized. Employees and managers resist due to anxieties over , skill obsolescence, and diminished influence, exacerbated by inadequate that fails to address cultural tensions between centralized standardization and unit-specific needs. In multidivisional organizations, such resistance contributes to failures, as divisions question the value of shared services when local expertise yields perceived better outcomes, prompting partial rollbacks or hybrid models that undermine full gains. Service quality issues arise post-adoption as shared services prioritize cost standardization over tailored responsiveness, resulting in gaps in timeliness and customer satisfaction, with surveys indicating over 75% of organizations establishing centers yet facing persistent quality shortfalls. Empirical studies highlight delays from insufficient training—85% of participants in one process efficiency survey reported non-detailed onboarding leading to extended ramp-up times and errors—compounded by rigid service level agreements that struggle during peak demands in public sector contexts. Internal perceptions of service quality further erode when centralized models overlook divisional nuances, fostering dissatisfaction among end-users who experience slower resolutions compared to prior decentralized setups, as evidenced by high staff turnover rates exceeding 10-20% signaling operational dysfunction. These challenges underscore causal links between resistance-driven incomplete integrations and quality lapses, where unaddressed employee engagement and communication amplify inefficiencies.

Documented Failures and Causal Factors

Several shared services implementations in the UK have collapsed due to dependencies and political shifts, as documented in analyses of ICT initiatives prior to 2017; for instance, one dissolved after the departure of a key charismatic leader, while another was abandoned amid concerns over political control and executive retirement. In , the National Audit Office reported in 2012 that multiple shared services programs, including those aimed at HR and finance centralization across departments like the , incurred costs exceeding £250 million without achieving anticipated efficiencies, leading to their termination or scaling back. Similarly, the Department for Transport's shared services effort in the early 2010s failed to deliver, contributing to broader critiques of IT-enabled centralization projects that overran budgets by tens of millions while disrupting operations. Causal factors in these failures often trace to inadequate strategic alignment and . Unclear business cases and mismatched partner expectations fostered inertia, with initiatives stalling when ambitions diverged or risks were unevenly distributed; surveys of trailblazers from 2011-2018 underscored how competing agendas and concerns unraveled collaborations. Lack of senior sponsorship exacerbated issues, as evidenced by operations where insufficient executive buy-in allowed resistance from units, resulting in persistent siloed processes—global benchmarks indicate that up to two-thirds of transactional activities like remain outside shared models in underperforming setups. Implementation deficiencies further compound risks, including failure to establish pre-project baselines for costs and service levels, which hinders measurable progress and fuels disillusionment. Poor process and overemphasis on premature delay transitions, while inadequate overlooks employee resource strains and cultural mismatches, leading to high staff turnover rates exceeding 10-20% in dysfunctional centers. Technical gaps, such as IT maturity disparities or incomplete ERP rollouts without robust training, amplify disruptions, as seen in cases where reactive customer communications and absent monitoring escalated costs without gains. syntheses confirm that neglecting staff retrenchment and top-level support correlates strongly with outright abandonment.

Recent Developments and Future Outlook

Integration of Digital Technologies and AI

Digital technologies, including , (RPA), and , have increasingly been adopted in shared services centers (SSCs) to automate routine operations and improve since the early 2020s. A scoping of 106 studies identified AI/machine learning in 14 articles and RPA in 10, highlighting their role in standardizing processes like and reducing errors through task automation. , featured in 24 studies, provides cost-efficient remote access and resource elasticity, while in 9 studies enhances transaction reliability in and functions. These integrations shift SSCs from transactional back-offices to data-driven hubs, with systems standardizing workflows and, in cases like Haier's implementation, enabling business scale to double via improved operational performance. AI applications specifically target high-volume processes, such as , where tools extract details like numbers and amounts without manual intervention. At the University of Michigan's , AI from the U-M GPT Toolkit automated around 70% of 300,000 annual invoices—up from 30% under prior template methods—freeing staff for value-added tasks, cutting imaging team tickets, and accelerating payments. In , Vodafone's Intelligent Solutions (VOIS) leverages Accenture's GenWizard generative AI platform across HR, , and IT shared services, accelerating technology enhancements by over 25% and integrating AI chatbots for customer-facing operations. RPA further streamlines shared services in areas like employee and , minimizing in data reconciliation. Empirical assessments link these technologies to efficiency and gains in SSCs. Interviews with 11 multinational SSC practitioners in revealed RPA's contributions to service delivery speed, cost reductions, remote capabilities, and paperless operations, collectively boosting metrics like waste minimization and . , powered by AI, enable real-time monitoring to foresee disruptions, positioning shared services as proactive advisors rather than reactive support. However, realization depends on upskilling workers for AI oversight, as displaces routine roles but elevates human focus to strategy and problem-solving. Looking ahead, autonomous AI agents—capable of memory, accountability, and multi-tasking beyond basic RPA—are expected to form the core of SSCs by late 2025, handling accounts payable and procurement dynamically for greater agility. Integration with emerging models like agentic AI promises further productivity lifts, though causal evidence ties benefits to complementary human reskilling and process redesign, avoiding over-reliance on unproven hype. Gartner’s 2025 AI Hype Cycle emphasizes prioritizing techniques amid regulatory hurdles, while McKinsey forecasts AI-driven workplace shifts favoring discrete-task agents over broad models. In shared services models, a prominent emerging trend involves leveraging technological innovations to enhance operational , particularly by minimizing resource waste and improving efficiency. For instance, the adoption of (RPA) in shared service centers has been shown to reduce paper usage and streamline service delivery, contributing to lower environmental impacts while maintaining cost-effectiveness and . This aligns with empirical insights from multinational shared service practitioners, who report that such technologies directly bolster the long-term viability of these centers by optimizing processes without compromising performance. Another key development is the integration of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria into shared services frameworks, enabling centralized tracking and reporting of metrics across organizations. Reshoring elements of supply chains through shared functions helps mitigate risks from climate-induced disruptions, such as natural disasters, while advancing ESG targets by enhancing visibility and control over sustainable sourcing. According to projections, climate-related high temperatures could disrupt 3.8% of global working hours by 2030, underscoring the adaptive value of these centralized approaches in building resilience against physical risks. Adaptation trends emphasize diversified operational models, including nearshoring and multi-location strategies, to counter economic and climatic volatilities. As of 2025, 90% of organizations plan to utilize nearshoring in regions like Latin America to access talent and improve supply chain robustness, reducing dependency on vulnerable global networks amid rising disaster frequencies—2024 marked the warmest year on record. Furthermore, shared services are evolving to incorporate predictive analytics and AI for proactive risk management, allowing organizations to adapt service delivery to fluctuating demands, such as those from regulatory shifts toward carbon footprint measurement in cloud-based shared IT infrastructures, expected to reach early mainstream adoption by 2025.

References

  1. https://www.techtarget.com/searchcio/definition/Shared-services
  2. https://www.gartner.com/en/finance/insights/shared-services-model
  3. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/307475740_Shared_service_center_research_A_review_of_the_past_present_and_future
  4. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9934509/
  5. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0263237316300950
  6. https://zinnov.com/centers-of-excellence/the-rise-of-global-business-services-gbs-the-future-of-shared-services-blog/
  7. https://www.ssonetwork.com/global-business-services/articles/a-beginners-guide-to-global-business-services-gbs
  8. https://pure.qub.ac.uk/files/24051320/Sharing_services_saving_money.pdf
  9. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27119396/
  10. https://www.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/topics/business-strategy-growth/evolution-of-shared-services.html
  11. https://www.ssonetwork.com/global-business-services/articles/a-guide-to-shared-services-centers
  12. https://insights.btoes.com/what-is-shared-services
  13. https://www.gartner.com/smarterwithgartner/3-advantages-of-shared-services-over-centralized-services
  14. https://assets.cio.gov/assets/files/resources/CIOC-Federal-Shared-Services-Implementation-Guide.pdf
  15. https://opsdog.com/categories/organization-charts/shared-services
  16. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/economiesofscale.asp
  17. https://www.scottmadden.com/insight/what-are-shared-services/
  18. https://www.adlittle.com/sites/default/files/viewpoints/24_07_2015_Arthur_D_Little_Roundtable_Shared_Services_Summary.pdf
  19. https://www.strategyand.pwc.com/gx/en/insights/2002-2010/shared-services.html
  20. https://www.cgi.com/sites/default/files/white-papers/cgi-government-shared-services-white-paper.pdf
  21. https://www.businessofgovernment.org/blog/sharedservices
  22. https://napawash.org/standing-panel-blog/an-introduction-to-shared-services
  23. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a78f09be5274a277e690a6f/government-shared-services-july2011.pdf
  24. https://yadda.icm.edu.pl/baztech/element/bwmeta1.element.baztech-9b1d0a83-f9bc-4db1-b118-b1c98cfc88b1/c/Anna_Kaczorowska__SHARED_SERVICE_CENTRES_IN_PUBLIC_ADMINISTRATION_IN_POLAND.pdf
  25. https://www.treasury.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2014-07/cass-2641277.pdf
  26. https://www.auxis.com/outsourcing-vs-captive-shared-services-which-model-is-right-for-you/
  27. https://stealthagents.com/bpo-vs-shared-services/
  28. https://www.cdfifund.gov/system/files/documents/us_consulting_outsourcing_sharedservices_100809.pdf
  29. https://www.cio.com/article/274480/outsourcing-total-cost-of-ownership-comparison-of-outsourced-versus-captive-solutions-for-capturing.html
  30. https://www.strategyand.pwc.com/gx/en/insights/archive/capturing-promise-shared-services/capturing-the-promise-of-shared-services.pdf
  31. https://assets.kpmg.com/content/dam/kpmg/xx/pdf/2016/09/gbs-pov-governance.pdf
  32. https://ussm.gsa.gov/ssgb/
  33. https://www.gartner.com/smarterwithgartner/5-shared-services-pricing-approaches
  34. https://www.gartner.com/smarterwithgartner/where-to-locate-your-shared-services-center
  35. https://www.ssonetwork.com/shared-services/columns/8-factors-to-consider-when-choosing-a-shared-services-location
  36. https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/services/consulting/services/shared-services-survey.html
  37. https://deloitte.wsj.com/cio/shared-services-centersexpand-scope-locations-01565139728
  38. https://www.outsourceaccelerator.com/articles/best-countries-for-outsourcing/
  39. https://www.auxis.com/10-shared-services-trends-shaping-the-gbs-industry-in-2025/
  40. https://www.apqc.org/resource-library/resource-collection/finance-shared-services-key-benchmarks
  41. https://www.peeriosity.com/shared-services/articles/2012/07/shared-services-metrics-accounts-payable/
  42. https://sharedserviceslink.com/blog/benchmark-and-develop-kpis-for-shared-services
  43. https://chazeypartners.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/How-to-Nail-Your-Performance-Measurement-in-Shared-Services.pdf
  44. https://www.highradius.com/resources/ebooks/23-kpis-for-shared-services/
  45. https://www.sson-analytics.com/shared-services-gbs-best-practices/reports/mastering-kpis-14-essential-metrics-to-drive-shared-services-success-2
  46. https://www.ssonetwork.com/shared-services/articles/q-a-key-performance-indicators-kpis
  47. https://www.pwc.at/de/publikationen/financial-services/shared-services-multiplying-success.pdf
  48. https://ussm.gsa.gov/1.6/
  49. https://www.scottmadden.com/content/uploads/2018/07/ScottMadden_Next-Step-for-Mature-Shared-Services-Organizations.pdf
  50. https://www.heflo.com/blog/examples-of-shared-services-center-ssc
  51. https://www.oracle.com/us/products/applications/ebusiness/erp-shared-services-1539807.pdf
  52. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/around-18bn-to-be-saved-by-government-plans-to-overhaul-back-office-systems
  53. https://www.nao.org.uk/reports/government-shared-services/
  54. https://www.local.gov.uk/efficiency-and-productivity/shared-services
  55. https://socitm.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/socitm-guide-ICT-shared-services-08-reasons-for-failiure.pdf
  56. https://www.gsa.gov/buy-through-us/shared-services
  57. https://www.businessofgovernment.org/sites/default/files/BurnsYeatonReport.pdf
  58. https://federalnewsnetwork.com/reporters-notebook-jason-miller/2017/08/house-approps-committee-faults-dhs-interior-alike-for-shared-services-failure/
  59. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17487870.2023.2281645
  60. https://www.scottmadden.com/content/uploads/2014/11/ScottMadden_Achieving-Real-Dollar-Savings-by-Implementing-SS_2014.pdf
  61. https://www.deloitte.com/us/en/about/press-room/deloitte-unveils-the-2025-global-business-services-survey.html
  62. https://www.pointb.com/case-studies/how-a-global-shared-services-strategy-saved-20-million-in-costs-for-a-leading-financial-services-organization
  63. https://www.wns.com/perspectives/case-studies/smarter-shared-services-model-yields-13m-in-savings-for-insurance-agency
  64. https://deloitte.wsj.com/cio/popularity-of-shared-services-still-rising-1433131301
  65. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287242885_Shared_Services_-_Standardization_Formalization_and_Control_A_Structured_Literature_Review
  66. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236270756_Standardization_as_a_key_issue_in_shared_service_organization
  67. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S026323731930129X
  68. https://www.renoirgroup.com/case_studies/utilities/lean-office-15-productivity-improvement-in-shared-services/
  69. https://deloitte.wsj.com/cio/how-organizations-leverage-gbs-and-shared-services-as-strategic-assets-01623783728
  70. https://thelabconsulting.com/design-and-implementation-of-a-standardization-road-map-for-global-shared-services-operations/
  71. https://qpol.qub.ac.uk/shared-services-risks-saving-money/
  72. https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Shared-services-centres.pdf
  73. https://chazeypartners.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Why-Shared-Services-Often-Still-Falters-At-The-Gate.pdf
  74. https://academic.oup.com/jpart/article/30/2/275/5576125
  75. https://www.prosci.com/managing-change-resistance
  76. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330423858_Managerial_challenges_to_realizing_IT_shared_services_in_a_public_university
  77. https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6398&context=dissertations
  78. https://ukcampaign4change.com/2012/03/07/shared-services-disaster-a-gain-for-some-officials-and-erp-suppliers/
  79. https://beyondcommandandcontrol.com/library/failures-of-change/examples-of-large-scale-it-failure-in-the-public-sector/
  80. https://www.ssonetwork.com/shared-services/articles/top-10-mistakes-when-implementing-shared-services
  81. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228854194_Success_and_failure_factors_of_Shared_Services_An_IS_literature_analysis
  82. https://fbj.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s43093-025-00654-z
  83. https://michigan.it.umich.edu/news/2025/03/19/transforming-invoice-processing-how-the-shared-services-center-is-leveraging-ai/
  84. https://www.accenture.com/us-en/case-studies/communications-media/vodafone-pioneers-commercialized-shared-services-operations
  85. https://www.itconvergence.com/blog/top-5-use-cases-for-rpa-in-shared-services-centers/
  86. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405844025012964
  87. https://www.supervity.ai/blogs/5-key-trends-that-will-shape-shared-services-before-2030
  88. https://www.gartner.com/en/articles/hype-cycle-for-artificial-intelligence
  89. https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/business%2520functions/mckinsey%2520digital/our%2520insights/the%2520top%2520trends%2520in%2520tech%25202025/mckinsey-technology-trends-outlook-2025.pdf
  90. https://sharedserviceslink.com/article/shared-services-outlook-for-2025
  91. https://www.weforum.org/stories/2025/01/ai-supply-chains/
  92. https://www.auxis.com/learn/shared-services/shared-services-trends/
  93. https://climate.copernicus.eu/
  94. https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2022-04-21-gartner-says-three-emerging-environmental-sustainability-technologies-will-see-early-mainstream-adoption-by-2025
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.