Signals of Readiness Leaders Often Overlook Before Establishing a GBS

In our previous article “Why GBS model cases breaks after one year”, we unpacked a common but costly mistake; approval is often mistaken for readiness.   A signed-off business case signals intent. It does not confirm that operations are ready to scale. In this article, we  focus on what leaders often miss next by assessing the early readiness signals that appear before go-live, but are too easily dismissed.

Readiness Signals Appear Earlier Than Leaders Expect

 

Most GBS models don’t break because the design is wrong. They break because leaders assume that once approval is granted, the organization is ready to scale.    

In reality, approval should trigger a different question:  

“Are our operations actually ready to run differently?”   

This is the moment to test whether processes are stable or still fragmented, whether ownership is clearly defined end to end, whether roles and decision rights are understood, and whether teams are capable of making judgement calls after go-live. When these questions are skipped, readiness is assumed rather than proven, and that assumption is often what causes GBS models to struggle later. 

Why Leaders Dismiss Early Readiness Signals  

Across organisations we have worked with, one pattern shows up repeatedly. Leaders operate under tight timelines, pressure from senior leadership, and ambitious technology and scale targets. This creates a belief that existing processes and ways of working are “good enough” to move first and can be improved later. In this environment, speed is prioritised over discipline, and readiness checks are viewed as obstacles rather than safeguards. Teams push forward before fundamentals are truly stable. 

This leads to a familiar response when early signals appear: “We’ll fix it after go-live.” 

In practice, this rarely works. Issues that are ignored early do not disappear; they compound and resurface later as instability, rework, and growing tension between GBS and retained teams. Approval may signal ambition, but only readiness determines whether progress is sustainable.

Where Early Readiness Signals Show Up  

Before GBS is launched, early readiness signals are usually visible in six areas:  

1. Processes are documented, but not stable  

   Teams follow different versions of the same process. Work relies heavily on experience and informal judgement. Exceptions become the norm.  

   
   

2. Ownership exists, but decision rights are unclear  

   Multiple teams feel responsible, but no one is accountable end to end. Issues move across HQ, and GBS without resolution.

     

3. Governance exists on paper, but not in practice  

   Governance structures are defined, but bypassed. Decisions are delayed, avoided, or escalated informally.

     

4. Leadership support is verbal, not operational  

   Senior leaders support the idea of GBS, but expectations are not clearly translated into behaviour, priorities, or trade-offs.

     

5. Teams are capable, but not confident  

   People understand the work, but hesitate to decide. Risk tolerance is unclear. Managers escalate instead of acting.

     

6. Readiness is assumed due to timeline pressure  

   Deadlines drive confidence. Risk is accepted as “normal for transformation,” rather than actively mitigated.  

Individually, these signals may seem manageable. Collectively, they predict what happens next.

What Happens When Signals Are Ignored  

When early readiness signals are dismissed, the outcomes are predictable. Stabilisation takes longer, rework and exceptions increase, and friction grows between GBS and retained teams. Over time, confidence in the GBS model declines — not because of a lack of intent, but because operations are running on weak foundations and technology is unable to support actual workflows. 

This is not a failure of ambition. It is a failure to pause and test readiness under pressure. GBS can be an innovation engine, but without readiness, the benefits are questionable. Transitioning to GBS is not a shortcut to scale or digital maturity. It is a long, continuous journey that requires stable fundamentals from the start. 

What Organizations That Get It Right Do Differently  

Organisations that succeed treat readiness as a mandatory step, not a formality. When early signals appear, leaders act deliberately. They anchor accountability clearly between HQ and GBS. They treat GBS as a decision-making platform, not just a cost centre. They build cross-functional ownership across end-to-end processes. They invest in capability development, not just hiring. They design processes to adapt, not merely comply. 

 

This is how GBS moves from execution to value. 

 

Strong-performing GBS organisations do not rush past early signals. They pause. They assess. They obsess over fundamentals — ownership, decision discipline, and operational clarity. GBS is not about adding technology, expanding centres, or looking mature on paper. It is a leadership commitment to operate differently, with discipline. 

 

The organisations that get this right do not ask whether they can launch GBS. They ask whether they are ready to run it. And the honesty of that answer explains everything that follows.