An internal mobility model puts case execution within the employer; a co-managed model keeps strategy and some relationship ownership inside while a partner operates defined services; an outsourced model delegates more day-to-day delivery under employer governance. None transfers the employer's ultimate policy and legal responsibilities. The right model depends less on a fixed assignment count than on country spread, case complexity, team capacity and how much operational control the business needs.
Key takeaways
- Keep talent strategy, policy, budget and exception authority clearly inside the employer.
- Define scope by activity and decision right, not by labels such as 'full service'.
- Test the model against your hardest cases and peak demand, not only routine moves.
- A transition needs an open-case inventory, supplier map, data plan and escalation owner.
What does a global mobility function do?
It translates workforce decisions into compliant, supported cross-border moves. The function accepts requests, classifies move types, gets specialist assessments, obtains approvals, coordinates immigration and relocation, tracks payroll and tax dependencies, informs employees and reports outcomes. The operating model determines who performs each action, but the need for ownership does not disappear.
| Dimension | Internal | Co-managed | Outsourced operations |
|---|---|---|---|
| Strategy and policy | Employer | Employer | Employer |
| Case intake and coordination | Employer team | Shared under agreed handoffs | Partner with employer approvals |
| Specialist advisers | Employer appoints and oversees | Employer or partner coordinates | Partner coordinates under contract |
| Reporting and exceptions | Employer builds process | Shared reporting; employer decides exceptions | Partner produces reporting; employer decides exceptions |
| Capacity response | Hire, train or reallocate | Flex agreed scope | Contracted capacity and escalation |
When each model becomes a better fit
Internal
Consider internal execution when the company has specialist depth, stable demand, distinctive policies and sufficient coverage across time zones. Check the cost of staff continuity and local subject-matter gaps. Internal does not mean doing every legal or immigration task without external advisers.
Co-managed
Consider co-managed delivery when HR wants to own business relationships and sensitive decisions but struggles with case administration, supplier orchestration or country coverage. Write a responsibility matrix for intake, employee contact, specialist commissioning, invoice review and escalation. Shared responsibility without an owner is the model's central risk.
Outsourced
Consider broader outsourcing when the team cannot sustainably operate the volume or geographic spread, or wants to redirect specialists toward policy and talent. Contract for evidence, reporting, escalation and portability of case records. Never describe outsourcing as a transfer of the employer's legal accountability.
A practical decision framework
| Question | What the answer changes |
|---|---|
| How many move types and jurisdictions? | Breadth of specialist coordination |
| How variable is demand? | Need for flexible operational capacity |
| Who can approve exceptions promptly? | Governance design |
| Which providers must stay? | Integration and supplier ownership |
| How are active cases recorded? | Transition effort and data migration |
| What does the employee experience today? | Service baseline for improvement |
Transition without losing open cases
- Inventory active moves and identify work-authorization and renewal dependencies.
- Agree a responsibility matrix and named case owners before migration.
- Tell existing suppliers what changes and what does not; retain trusted providers where useful.
- Define data permissions, document retention and how historical decisions are transferred.
- Pilot a limited population, review exceptions, then expand scope after handoffs work.
- Set a reporting cadence and exit plan from the outset.
Illustrative scenario: the overextended HR team
A growing employer has HR generalists managing permanent transfers alongside short project visits. Its internal policy is sound, but no one consolidates supplier status. Rather than surrender policy ownership, it co-manages: HR approves the package and communicates with hiring leaders; a mobility partner owns intake, handoffs, deadlines and employee updates. The model succeeds only if escalation is written down and tested.
Mistakes in model selection
- Using made-up volume cutoffs as if they determine the right model.
- Outsourcing tasks but keeping fragmented data and inconsistent employee communications.
- Confusing a software subscription with operational ownership.
- Failing to budget for change management and open-case transfer.
- Evaluating a partner without speaking to the people who will actually run cases.
- Global mobility management: full employer guide
- Practical outsourcing scope and procurement guide
- Managed mobility service
Write the responsibility matrix before selecting software
Map each activity to a person who performs it, a person who approves it and the specialists who advise. At intake, who validates the employee's facts? At feasibility, who requests country advice? At approval, who can commit budget and accept an exception? At deployment, who checks work-readiness and tells the manager if the start date changes? At closure, who confirms all invoices, renewals and return obligations? A platform can track those steps, but it cannot decide a missing decision right for the employer.
Signals that the model should change
Reconsider the operating model when expansion adds jurisdictions the current team cannot cover, when employee communications depend on one person's availability, when exceptions take longer than ordinary approvals or when leaders cannot get a reliable open-case view. A sudden project population may justify temporary co-managed capacity even if annual move volume is low. Conversely, an employer with extensive internal expertise may prefer to retain execution and commission only country-specific specialist services. Complexity and resilience matter more than a threshold.
Make the first governance meeting practical
Invite HR, the sponsoring business, finance, payroll, legal and the proposed operations owner. Bring a sample move and walk it from request through return: what information each group receives, what it must decide and what happens if an adviser recommends a different plan. Document disagreements as policy decisions rather than letting the implementation team improvise. Agree one route for urgent escalations and one forum for recurring policy questions.
Plan for a reversible arrangement
Whichever model is chosen, the employer should retain access to case histories, decision records, supplier contracts and reporting definitions. An outsourced or co-managed contract should describe export formats, transition assistance and responsibility for open cases at termination. An internal model also needs continuity if a key employee leaves. Reversibility is not a signal of mistrust; it is an ordinary control for a function that cannot pause while an organisation changes teams or vendors.
Frequently asked questions
Can we outsource mobility and keep our immigration counsel?
Yes. Specify who briefs counsel, tracks their advice, owns the employee update and pays invoices. Trusted specialists can remain while coordination changes.
What must remain with the employer?
At minimum, the employer must set policy, approve material exceptions and budgets, and retain oversight of its legal obligations; the precise responsibilities vary with the arrangement and jurisdiction.
Is co-managed mobility only for mid-sized companies?
No. It is a design choice based on capability and scope; large and small employers can both benefit when decision rights are clear.
How do we know a transition worked?
Track open cases, missed handoffs, approvals, employee feedback and reconciled costs against a documented baseline rather than relying only on launch date.
What happens to current suppliers?
Map each provider's service and decide to retain, replace or re-scope based on performance and governance; no automatic replacement is necessary.
Compare ownership, delivery and transition needs with a mobility specialist.
Assess Our Mobility Operating Model
