Search results

The reason of this chapter is to clarify at a conceptual level the phenomenon of shared service centers. The aim of the chapter is to enable managers make better decisions when applying the concept of shared service centers.

This is a conceptual chapter, in which the phenomenon of shared service centers is being rewritten, from an initial cost efficiency level, into a constituting building block in the new nature of the firm.

The findings of this chapter are that especially the combination of financial shared service centers and IT shared service centers are an instrument to organize information outside the structure of the internal organization of the firm, as implied by the changing nature of the firm. Also shared service centers are enablers for new business models, especially those based on human capital.

Executives and managers that have a better conceptual understanding of the application of shared service centers will create more benefits beyond costs savings.

This is the first chapter in which shared service center is reconceptualized in terms of the changing nature of the firm. With that it is also one of the first chapter describing the changing nature of the firm in operational terms. The value of the chapter is that it will help executives to define more efficient change processes. A second value of the chapter is that it opens new avenues of empirical and conceptual research for academia.

This chapter seeks to optimize HR shared services performance by highlighting the potential for service fragmentation that can arise out of in the so-called Ulrich (structure or service delivery) model.

The evidence used in this chapter principally comes from the author’s own work, especially research for the UK’s Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD), and draws upon academic literature where possible.

This chapter argues that HR directors should guard against three sets of fragmentation risks. Firstly, HR shared services should be properly connected to the rest of HR to offer customers an integrated service to avoid the structure’s division of labor inducing incoherence. Second, to guard against this risk, HR directors should exercise care in outsourcing/offshoring beyond individual, discrete services because contractually or spatially separating services risks exacerbating this tendency to fragmentation. Outsourcing/offshoring may focus too much on cost savings and insufficiently on quality. So, third, HR should argue for the distinctiveness of its activities and fight commoditization that is also implied in the creation of cross-functional shared service centers.

The arguments in this chapter could be better supported by academic research. In-depth case studies of management decision making and shared services operation would help support or challenge the chapter’s conclusion, as could quantitative evidence on the benefits/disbenefits of outsourcing/offshoring/cross-functional shared services centers.

We have highlighted a number of reported problems with HR shared services operation, besides the three principal risks noted above, but we have suggested possible solutions that could be adopted by practitioners.

HR managers may find this chapter helpful in designing new HR structures or in assessing the effectiveness of shared services that goes beyond the typical key performance indicator measures.

The purpose of this study is to offer an integrated literature review of shared services’ organizational structures by specifically focusing on centralization, specialization, control, and formalization mechanisms.

A sample consisting of 103 empirical and conceptual articles, identified in a structured literature search in Science Direct and Scopus, was analyzed. The focus was on exploring the structural dimensions of shared services in various fields: Supply Chains, Finance, Human Resource Management, and Information Technologies. Findings from the selected articles were codified alongside the structural dimensions drawn from contingency theory.

Most of the papers identified were concerned with the Human Resource function or with Accounting and Finance in the private sector. Purchasing was only mentioned in a few general articles and Marketing not represented at all, even though the literature suggests that shared services do exist in this field. This uneven distribution across fields, as well as the reality that many articles fail to make clear divisions between disciplines, is hardly conducive to identifying trends for individual disciplines, and only general trends for each dimension could be identified. Although centralization was one of the most discussed dimensions, there was no consensus as to whether shared services should be centralized or decentralized. Standardization and formalization were both found to be highly important, although a need for customization was also emphasized.

Future research should be oriented toward the structural dimensions of shared services in a broader range of fields as current findings are dominated by the Human Resource function. Another implication of our findings is that scholars could usefully test empirically the dimensions, especially those where opinions differed the most: centralization and specialization.

Earlier conceptualizations noted that the mixed shared service outcomes stem from the diversity in governance and several contingency factors. This work continues the exploration of the contingency factors and mechanisms that, through integration, allow shared services to respond to the environmental uncertainty. The value of this chapter is in examining the structures of different functional types of shared services that are reported as successful in the literature, thus offering an overview of best practices in organizing shared services.

While there is a growing body of research demonstrating that HR Shared Services can offer a value-creating structure for HRM within organizations, there remains considerable room for improving our understanding of it. The premise of this chapter is that the mixture of HR Shared Services outcomes leans on the diversity of the governance structures, which rest in turn on several contingency factors. This means that every HRM Shared Services Model (SSM) is unique in its structure, and thus the value proposition of every HRM SSM is unique. Therefore, instead of promoting a standard package of values expected from HR shared services, organizations should develop unique value propositions that are contingent on their unique governance structures.

This chapter discusses the constitution of Shared Services and the value of a consensual agreement of a definition for academe and practice. It explores the operating principles and services, the concepts of internal customer and internal service, and their importance for the practitioner and research communities.

This chapter employed a broad review of the literature to examine Shared Services. The research team used NVivo as a tool to create a database of key articles and books to analyze the key concepts and topics.

There is a lack of consensus on the definition of Shared Services in the research and practitioner community. Additionally, the concept of internal customer requires greater exploration and understanding within the context of Shared Services. How Shared Services provides competitive advantage to organizations is also not well understood.

This discussion provides a challenge to the research community to focus on the contributions of shared services to business management theory. This requires a consensus that is currently nonexistent, to ensure the correct use of the terminology and model.

By establishing a clearer understanding of what is Shared Services, the academic and the practitioner community, in particular, will gain greater competencies on Shared Services to support change management programs during the implementation phases and minimize implementation costs by lowering organizational and people resistance. The variants in shared services terminology create confusion which is likely to result in ambiguity during implementation and have practical implications on governance, customers and service, benefits realization and performance.

This chapter addresses the lack of agreed definition of the term Shared Services and the role of the internal customer and consequent internal service delivery.

The purpose of this study is to explore the use of shared services by end-users and why this may conflict with the use as intended by the shared service center (SSC) management.

By applying structuration theory, this empirical study draws on qualitative data obtained from semi-structured interviews with managers and end-users of an SSC. This SSC is part of a Dutch subsidiary of a multinational corporation that produces professional electronics for the defense and security market.

We find two main types of shared services usage by end-users which were not intended by the SSC management: avoidance and window-dressing. These forms of unintended usage were the result of contradictions in social structures related to the centralization and decentralization models as appropriated by end-users and management.

Our findings show that the benefits of shared services depends on how well contradictions in managers’ and end-users’ interpretive schemes, resources, and norms associated with centralization and decentralization models are resolved.

A popular argument in existing studies is that the benefit of shared services follows from the design of the SSC’s organizational structure. These studies overlook the fact that shared services are not always used as their designers intended and, therefore, that success depends on how the SSC’s organizational structure is appropriated by end-users. As such, the originality of this study is our focus on the way shared services are used by their end-users in order to explain why SSCs succeed or fail in reaping their promised benefits.