1.
I’m grumpy about how we shape shared services
models for our organizations
▪ Bandwagon effect: look to implement
headline models to be seen as up-to-date
▪ Oversimplification: make model
decisions in a binary fashion
▪ Lack of context: forget that shared
services model success is situational
▪ Confirmation bias: search for
benchmarks confirming preconceptions
We take shortcuts which can lead us to
suboptimal decisions
So I sat down
and developed a
“Myers-Briggs”
for shared
services
2

2.
3

3.
Why pick the right shared services persona?
▪ SUCCESS MATTERS …the wrong approach can put shared services back years
▪ SQUARE PEG IN A ROUND HOLE …models must work with organizational reality
▪ THOSE THAT IGNORE HISTORY ARE BOUND TO REPEAT IT …with shared
services maturity we can now see patterns
▪ ELIMINATE PEER PRESSURE …Armed with data and patterns, do what’s optimum
▪ PREREQUISITE TO “MATURITY” …identifying right starting point is
critical to knowing when you can evolve
IN SHORT…. NO ONE SIZE FITS ALL!
THE RIGHT STARTING POINT IS KEY
4

4.
▪ Business context growth potential/margin & revenue
performance/operating footprint/peer comparisons/corporate
events/market or product expansion/change initiatives
▪ Organizational reality chief executive tenure/risk profile/state
of technology/management diversity/power structure/culture/
decision-making context/value placed on talent
▪ Shared services journey mandate/stakeholder support/value
creation expectations/current scope/investment/scaling/level of
automation/reporting/reputation/source for talent/cost
allocation/process delivery
What feeds into the right persona
for your organization?
5

5.
About the Shared Services
Persona Survey
▪ First run: 30 responses October-November 2017
▪ Confidential: unless details shared
▪ Even split: between trans-national,
regional and global companies
▪ 4 primary personae
▪ Across 40 questions/
3 dimensions: business context,
organizational reality, shared services experience
▪ Predictive/indicative of success:
based on patterns but not an absolute Transformation
Control
Landlord
Servant Integrator
Consolidator
6

6.
The Landlord persona
Flat to negative
financial
performance
No to
slow growth
High
independence
in decision
making
Low shared
services
maturity
Market lagger
positioning
No seat at
table
Select factory
processes in
scope
Limited to no
digitization
Mandate
encourage but
not required
Challenging
to neutral
reputation
Talent
out of sight
Risk
adverse
“Dino-sauric”
tech adoption
7
No/limited
appetite for
transformation
Cost cutter
shared
services brand

7.
The Servant persona
Average
financial
performance
Limited
risk
Consensual
decision
making Steady
predictable
growth
Maturing
through
gradual scale
No mandate
opt in
Hard to get
seat at table
Factory +
some value
added scope
Limited
talent
mobility
Low
appetite for
transformation
Tech starts
+ ends
with ERP
Early stage
digitization
Considered
market peer
Vendor of
transactions for
one process
brand
8
Reputation
for cheap &
cheerful
delivery of
transactions

8.
Maturing
Reports
to CXO
The Consolidator persona
Appetite for
measured
risk
Collegial,
center-focused
decision
making Becoming
global/adding
new products
Some
E2E
Aggressively
embedding
digitization
Participation
strongly
encouraged
with incentives
Moving
to next
gen ERP
Transform
through
consolidate
standardize at
scale
Brands
delivery
excellence
Reputation as
reliable “silent
runner”
Market
challenger
Meeting/
exceeding
risks
Multi-
functional
9
Peep source
for functional
talent

9.
Mature
Reports
to chief
executive
The Integrator persona
Truly global/
obsessed with
winning
Center-led
top down
decisions
E2E cross-
functional
scope
Participation
mandatory
Deep source
of enterprise
talent
Moved
beyond
ERP
Branded as
competitive
advantage
Reputation as
value creatorMarket
leaders
Financial
performance
stratospheric
10
High
tolerance
for risk
Loves to
transform

10.
Where are respondents today in aggregate?
DegreeofTransformation
Level of Control (held by shared service model)
Business context
strongly favor
Integrator model
but
Organization
reality pulls
models to a Servant
shared service
model while
maturity suggests
that respondents’
Shared services
journey have
evolved towards
both Integrator and
Consolidator
models.
Any
surprises?
SHARED
SERVICES
JOURNEY
BUSINESS
CONTEXT
ORGANIZATION
REALITY
COMBINED
TOTAL
11

11.
What does response distribution tell us?
DegreeofTransformation
Level of Control (held by shared service model)
Respondents in
the main have
high appetite for
change/transform
but organizational
reality is forcing
some shared
services models
to overcome a
level of business
line/functional
control
12

12.
Business
context
Growth potential
13
Revenue performance
Margin performance
Peer comparison
Merger, acquisition and
divestiture activityMarket
expansion
Imperative for change
Appetite for
transformation
Transformation
initiative status
Chief executive tenure
and imperative
Risk profile
Technology
adoption
Digital
journey

13.
So let’s look at business conditions
▪ Generally moderate to high growth enterprises with chief execs
well into their tenure
▪ Improving, market leading revenue performance but challenges
with margin
▪ High M&A activity and expanding markets at the same time
▪ High appetite for change and transformation/always in a state of
flux but low tolerance for risk
▪ High tech adoption but still early on the digital journey
14
In short, business conditions are generally
favorable to advancing models

14.
Business context score distribution
Transformation
Level of Control (at shared Service)
15

15.
Organizational
reality
Management
diversity
16
Power structure
Culture
Decision-making
context
Talent
management
Value placed on
talent

16.
And now for organizational reality…
▪ Chief executives have imperative to change the way enterprises
interface with markets, customers and suppliers but not reflected
in mandate for shared services
▪ Grown by M&A but still preserving individual cultures and ways
of working
▪ Collegial approach to management decision-making but servant
view of shared services
▪ Value ascribed to talent but not consistently across business units
and regions
17
It appears we’re still missing the boat on organizational
alignment/change management to truly evolve

17.
Organizational reality score distribution
Transformation
Level of Control (at shared Service)
18

18.
Experience with
shared services
19
Historical
ownership
Shared services
journey
Mandate
Stakeholder support
Value creation
Scope
Focus Allied transformation
initiatives
Investment
Scaling Level of automation
Reporting
Reputation
Perception
Source for talent
Cost allocation
Process delivery

19.
…with experience at different
starting points
▪ Overwhelming mandate/encouragement but not reporting to
top table
▪ High degree of enterprise support but modest brand salience
▪ Seen as success but focused on transactions not value creation
▪ Global functional ownership driving servant model
▪ RPA evaluated but still restricted to proof of concept
However, models have attained sufficient scope/scale to
deliver meaningful enterprise benefit
20

20.
Shared service journey score distribution
DegreeofTransformation
Level of Control (held by shared services models)
21

21.
Key findings
thus far
▪ Business success +/= model advancement
Simple models best when cost cutting a priority;
complex models fostered by performance
▪ Timing and imperative impact persona
Critical to avoid poor fit
▪ Top leadership must be in the mix
No advancement without C-level sponsorship
▪ Transformation is necessary tail wind
Velocity of change an enabler
▪ Central power base key to value
Scope, complexity and scale dependent on
enterprise, not functional, control
▪ Organizations still resistant Shared services
evolution still restricted by acceptance
22

22.
Parting
words
23

23.
Want to know
more about your
shared services
persona?
Like the concept?
Want to help
evolve the model?
Contact
deborah.kops@sourcingchange.com