Why GBS Business Cases Break After Year One

In an earlier discussion on Building the Business Case for a GBS Model in Malaysia, we explored why approval is not the same as readiness.  

Most GBS business cases do not fail at approval. They break after year one. 

Here’s the situation: 

The business case is signed, funding is approved, and the GBS model moves into execution. At that point, confidence is usually high. The organization has agreed on the direction, and momentum takes over. But once the first-year passes, familiar signals begin to surface. Benefits slow down. Escalations increase. GBS feels busy, yet its impact becomes harder to explain. 

This is where approval stops protecting the business. 

The issue is rarely the GBS concept itself. More often, it is the assumption that once approval is granted, readiness will follow.

Approval Is Not the Same as Being Ready

Approval answers a strategic question: should we move forward with a GBS model? 

Readiness answers an operational one: can the organization run this model effectively, at scale, and under pressure? 

These two ideas are often treated as interchangeable, but they are not. Across many GBS, approval creates confidence to move fast, while readiness determines whether the organization can absorb the consequences of that speed. 

Readiness gaps rarely appear early. They surface later. 

How these gaps surface also differs by organization. Multinationals and government-linked companies often experience readiness challenges in very different ways, even when the GBS model looks similar on paper. 

And year one is usually when those gaps become visible. 

Processes Are Less Ready Than They Look

GBS business cases are built to support decision making, not to describe operational reality in detail. As a result, process maturity is often assumed rather than proven. 

Processes may look consistent at a high level, but in practice they vary across regions, rely on undocumented workarounds, and depend heavily on individual knowledge. These details are not always critical for approval, but they matter deeply once work is migrated and scaled. 

GBS absorbs complexity the business never resolved. 

As a result, the first year is often spent understanding how work is actually done, rather than improving it. 

Ownership Becomes Unclear Under Pressure 

Role clarity is another area where approval can create false confidence. Responsibilities may be defined during the design phase, but once operations begin and pressure builds, GBS ownership and decision rights often blur. 

Escalations bypass agreed paths. Accountability shifts. GBS is expected to deliver outcomes without full control over upstream decisions or demand. 

This is the point where organizations discover what “under pressure” really looks like, not in theory but in daily decisions. 

When pressure rises, ownership moves. 

This is not usually the result of poor intent. It reflects the difference between agreeing on a model and operating it day to day. Without firm ownership anchored early, GBS becomes a place where issues accumulate rather than a system designed to resolve them.

Technology Change Takes Time to Settle

Technology gaps in GBS rarely come from the system themselves. 

Before GBS, different markets operate on different ERP systems or versions. When a GBS model is introduced, organizations usually standardize onto a single system or undertake an ERP transformation, often in parallel with migration activities.

In most cases, the decision is sound. However, the change that comes with standardization or upgrade takes time to stabilize. During this transition period, teams often rely more on workarounds and interim processes. Errors increase. Turnaround slows. Confidence takes a hit.

Once again, these issues are not always visible at approval. They tend to surface later, once volumes increase and handoffs multiply.

What looks like an operating model problem may stem from a technology change that has not fully settled.

The Question to Ask After Approval 

A GBS business case should not end at sign-off. If it does, leaders are left asking whether alignment exists, rather than questioning what has been assumed to be ready when it may not be. 

Year one answers the readiness question, with or without leadership intent. 

This is the kind of work AGOS Asia is often asked to support. Not to design the model, but to help organizations test readiness across phases, rather than discovering gaps after scale. 

The difference is whether leaders choose to confront that reality early, or allow it to surface through cost overruns, friction, and lost confidence. 

Approval starts the journey. 

Readiness determines whether it holds.