Local Rule: Shared Services. Global Rule: GBS.
Rethinking Global Business Services for the Agentic Era
XBN – Xcellence Business Newsletter
ISSN 3086-2809
Research Article
Publicado: 07 de setembro de 2026
https://doi.org/10.66046/xbn.gbs.agentic.2026
Carlos Magalhães
Xcellence Press – São Paulo, Brazil
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0005-3219-8239
Lattes: http://lattes.cnpq.br/7664831979119469
Abstract
Global Business Services (GBS) has evolved from traditional Shared Services structures toward multifunctional, geographically distributed, digitally enabled operating models combining internal delivery, external providers, Centers of Excellence, and global process governance. Despite this evolution, much of the managerial logic of GBS continues to reflect the historical economics of Shared Services, in which scale is strongly associated with concentration, standardization, and resource consolidation.
This applied conceptual paper examines how Agentic AI may alter this relationship. Drawing on established research on organizational capabilities, knowledge transfer, replication, contextual adaptation, and GBS governance, the paper argues that technological architectures increasingly allow components of organizational capability to be enacted across multiple organizational contexts without requiring proportional concentration or replication of the resources through which those capabilities were originally exercised.
An applied capability-governance framework is developed in which GBS is interpreted primarily as an architecture for governing organizational capabilities that require global coherence while allowing legitimate contextual variation. The framework distinguishes global capability governance, capability development, execution architecture, contextual enactment, and organizational learning. It also introduces capability propagability as a GBS design property describing the extent to which a governed capability can expand its organizational reach without proportional reconstruction of its underlying resource base.
The paper further argues that this perspective expands the GBS value proposition beyond back-office productivity and cost reduction. By making organizational capabilities more broadly available, GBS can increase the enterprise’s capacity to absorb growth, integrate new operations, respond to change, and expand without proportionally rebuilding supporting structures.
Keywords
Global Business Services; Shared Services; Agentic AI; organizational capabilities; capability governance; Centers of Excellence; organizational growt
1. Introduction:
Shared Services emerged as an organizational response to the duplication of support activities across business units. By consolidating similar work, organizations could increase specialization, standardize processes, improve resource utilization, strengthen control, and distribute fixed costs over larger volumes. Over time, internationalization added offshoring and labor arbitrage to this economic logic, making location another important component of Shared Services design.
The model subsequently expanded. Shared Services Centers began to incorporate broader functional scope, more complex activities, global delivery locations, outsourcing arrangements, digital platforms, and end-to-end process responsibilities. Academic and professional literature increasingly described this evolution through the concept of Global Business Services (GBS), commonly associated with multifunctional scope, integration across regions, multiple sourcing arrangements, global delivery, and coordinated governance (Wirtz et al., 2015; Plugge & Nikou, 2021; Plugge et al., 2023).
Research has also progressively moved beyond a narrow cost perspective. Wirtz et al. (2015), for example, positioned GBS within the broader evolution of globally integrated business services and their contribution to productivity and economic growth. Plugge and Nikou (2021) examined service governance in plural sourcing environments, emphasizing the need to coordinate interdependencies among internal and external service providers. More recently, Plugge et al. (2023) examined the orchestration of GBS portfolios, showing the importance of modularized business processes, plural sourcing, and customer orientation.
These contributions reinforce an important development: GBS is increasingly more than a centralized collection of transactional support activities. However, the distinction between Shared Services and GBS remains frequently expressed through characteristics such as functional breadth, geographic scope, sourcing complexity, process integration, technological sophistication, and the value added by the work performed. This creates a conceptual and managerial difficulty: a Shared Services organization may become larger, more global, more digital, more multifunctional, and more analytically sophisticated without necessarily changing the fundamental logic through which it is managed.
If scale continues to be achieved primarily by concentrating execution, and globality continues to be interpreted primarily through the geographic reach or organizational scope of the delivery structure, GBS can become difficult to distinguish from an increasingly sophisticated global Shared Services Center.
The distinction becomes more consequential with the emergence of Agentic AI. Previous generations of automation progressively reduced the amount of human effort required to execute standardized activities: enterprise systems embedded business rules, workflow systems coordinated predefined sequences of activity, and Robotic Process Automation reproduced structured human interactions with applications. Agentic AI extends the technological boundary further, as AI agents can increasingly interpret information, interact with multiple systems and data sources, apply decision criteria, select tools, sequence actions, and adapt execution to changing conditions within defined governance boundaries.
Current professional evidence already suggests that this development can materially affect GBS operating models. A PwC analysis estimates that AI agents can perform approximately 25 to 40 percent of tasks commonly assigned to GBS environments and explicitly associates agentic-first models with a reduced dependence on traditional labor arbitrage (PwC, 2026). McKinsey & Company (2026) similarly anticipates GBS organizations becoming approximately 20 to 30 percent smaller while simultaneously becoming more productive and potentially expanding their scope.
These projections are significant, but their most important implication may not be headcount reduction. Agentic AI can potentially change the relationship between organizational capability and the structure required to exercise it. Consider a capability that depends on organizational knowledge, reference data, policies, validation criteria, decision rules, controls, accumulated experience, and mechanisms of coordination. Historically, making that capability available in another organizational unit generally required some degree of replication: knowledge had to be transferred, people trained, procedures implemented, systems configured, supervision and control mechanisms established, and local experience accumulated.
Research on organizational knowledge and capabilities has long demonstrated that such transfers are neither automatic nor frictionless. Organizational knowledge is embedded in routines and relationships (Nelson & Winter, 1982; Kogut & Zander, 1992), best practices can be difficult to transfer internally (Szulanski, 1996), and successful knowledge transfer frequently requires balancing replication with adaptation to context (Williams, 2007).
Agentic architectures create another possibility. Components of organizational knowledge and decision capability can increasingly remain embedded within a common technological-operational architecture while being enacted across several organizational environments, allowing a receiving unit to gain access to part of an organizational capability without independently reconstructing every resource through which that capability was originally exercised.
This does not imply uniform execution. Context remains important: regulation, market conditions, customers, infrastructure, risk characteristics, suppliers, and time can legitimately modify how a common organizational capability is enacted.
The relevant management problem consequently becomes more precise. The organization must determine what should remain common, what may legitimately vary, how organizational knowledge should be stabilized, which elements can be technologically enacted, where execution should occur, and how local experience should influence the evolution of the globally governed capability.
This paper argues that these questions provide a more useful foundation for interpreting the future role of Global Business Services. Instead of defining GBS primarily through the concentration, location, or organizational scope of service delivery, the paper examines GBS as a governance architecture for organizational capabilities requiring global coherence and contextual enactment.
This interpretation does not attempt to establish a new general theory of organizational capabilities. Established literature already provides substantial understanding of routines, knowledge transfer, replication, adaptation, and capability evolution. The purpose of the paper is applied: to use these established concepts to reinterpret a specific managerial model - Global Business Services - under changing technological conditions.
The paper therefore addresses the following research question:
How should Global Business Services be designed and governed when organizational capabilities can be globally governed and technologically enacted across multiple contexts without requiring proportional concentration or replication of execution resources?
To answer this question, the paper develops an applied capability-governance framework for GBS built around five distinctions. It separates global capability governance from the geographic location of execution; distinguishes capability development, including the role of Centers of Excellence, from the authority to determine what should become globally applicable; treats Shared Services Centers, Centers of Scale, local operations, external providers, platforms, and AI agents as alternative or complementary components of an execution architecture rather than as defining characteristics of GBS; recognizes contextual enactment, whereby a globally governed capability can legitimately produce different actions or outcomes under different conditions; and treats organizational learning as a continuous mechanism through which global capability is revised by evidence emerging from its application.
Within this framework, the paper introduces capability propagability as an applied GBS design property. Capability propagability describes the extent to which a sufficiently stabilized and governed organizational capability can be enacted across multiple contexts through a common technological-operational architecture without requiring proportional reconstruction of the resources through which the capability was originally exercised. The concept does not replace established notions of replication, knowledge transfer, diffusion, or adaptation; its purpose is managerial, directing attention to the economic relationship between the organizational reach of a capability and the resources required to make that capability available.
This distinction also has implications for how GBS value is assessed. A traditional productivity perspective evaluates whether the same output can be produced with fewer resources, while a capability perspective additionally asks how much more organizational activity, growth, complexity, or geographic expansion can be supported by capabilities that already exist. GBS can therefore create value through two related but distinct mechanisms: by improving the productivity with which capabilities are exercised and by expanding the organizational availability of those capabilities. This perspective moves GBS beyond a predominantly back-office interpretation: GBS becomes relevant not only because it can reduce the cost of supporting the enterprise, but because it can increase the enterprise's ability to grow and operate globally without proportionally reconstructing the capabilities required to support that growth.
The remainder of the paper develops the conceptual foundations for this argument, presents the applied capability-governance framework and its propositions, discusses implications for GBS productivity and organizational growth, and concludes with managerial implications and opportunities for empirical research.
Sobre o Autor
Carlos Magalhães tem participado diretamente da evolução das estruturas de Serviços Compartilhados desde o final da década de 1990, atuando em implementações em estágio inicial, integrações regionais de multinacionais e iniciativas de redesenho de governança em organizações no Brasil, na América Latina, na Europa e na América do Norte.
Ao longo de quase três décadas, seu trabalho tem abrangido assessorias executivas em organizações de grande porte, a estruturação de iniciativas regionais de pesquisa e a autoria de livros e frameworks de governança relacionados a Serviços Compartilhados e maturidade organizacional. Essa experiência longitudinal e em múltiplos contextos fundamenta a reinterpretação evolutiva apresentada neste artigo.
How to cite this article
Magalhães, C. A. P. (2026). Local Rule: Shared Services. Global Rule: GBS. Rethinking Global Business Services for the Agentic Era. XBN – Xcellence Business Newsletter, Research Article (Continuous Publication). São Paulo: Xcellence Press. https://doi.org/10.66046/xbn.gbs.agentic.2026
References
Davis, T. R. V. (2005). Integrating shared services with the strategy and operations of MNEs. Business Process Management Journal, 11(2), 1–17.
Gospel, H., & Sako, M. (2010). The unbundling of corporate functions: The evolution of shared services and outsourcing in human resource management. Industrial and Corporate Change, 19(5), 1367–1396. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtq002
Howcroft, D., & Richardson, H. (2012). The back office goes global: Exploring connections and contradictions in shared service centres. Work, Employment and Society, 26(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017011426309
Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3(3), 383–397. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.3.3.383
Magalhães, C. A. P. (2013). Como alavancar vantagem competitiva através de Centro de Serviços Compartilhados: Estratégia para maximizar o valor em sua organização. All Print.
Magalhães, C. A. P. (2018). Centro de serviços compartilhados: Estratégias para maximizar o valor de sua organização (2nd ed.). All Print.
Magalhães, C. A. P. (2020). Caderno de Tendências & Projeções 2020 – O futuro dos Serviços Compartilhados como plataforma de serviços digitais. Xcellence & Co. https://www.xcellence.com.br/articles/csc-como-plataforma-servicos-digitais
McKinsey & Company. (2026, August 11). Agentic AI and the future of global business services. https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/operations/our-insights/agentic-ai-and-the-future-of-global-business-services
Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Plugge, A., & Nikou, S. (2021). Implementing global business services in a plural sourcing context: Conceptualizing modes of service governance. In T. X. Bui (Ed.), Proceedings of the 54th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 5944–5953). https://doi.org/10.24251/HICSS.2021.719
Plugge, A., Nikou, S., Robben, H., & Kievit, H. (2023). Orchestrating a global business services portfolio in a plural sourcing context: The mediating role of modularised business processes. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 37(1), 100–124. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-04-2023-0217
Plugge, A., & Nikou, S. (2024). Digitalisation of global business services: Orchestrating the enterprise ecosystem. Springer.
PwC. (2026, May). Agentic-first GBS: Moving beyond labor arbitrage. https://www.pwc.com/us/en/services/consulting/business-transformation/intelligence-over-arbitrage-agentic-gbs.html
Szulanski, G. (1996). Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2), 27–43. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250171105
Williams, C. (2007). Transfer in context: Replication and adaptation in knowledge transfer relationships. Strategic Management Journal, 28(9), 867–889. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.614
Wirtz, J., Tuzovic, S., & Ehret, M. (2015). Global business services: Increasing specialization and integration of the world economy as drivers of economic growth. Journal of Service Management, 26(4), 565–587. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-01-2015-0024