Back to Blog
Scaling a contingent workforce programme is not simply a matter of adding more countries, more suppliers or more people to the team.
As the programme grows, the operating model becomes more complex. New markets bring different legal requirements, stakeholder structures, systems, supplier landscapes and ways of working. Executive expectations rise, reporting demands increase and the programme is often asked to take responsibility for areas that previously sat elsewhere, including SOW, unmanaged spend and emerging forms of digital labour.
The real question is not whether a programme can expand. It is whether it can expand without losing visibility, control or trust.
That was one of the strongest conclusions from my conversation with Brenda Monaghan, EMEA Program Manager for Contingent Labor at Medtronic, at CWS Europe 2026.
Across the first three articles in this series, I have explored why global expansion is not a copy-and-paste rollout, why change management and compliance determine whether a programme works in practice, and where workforce governance begins to break down through VMS limitations, SOW leakage and reporting gaps.
In this fourth and final article, I look at what organisations need to build a workforce programme that can genuinely scale.
Internal ownership can be a real advantage
Medtronic moved from an external MSP model to an internally managed contingent workforce programme around eight or nine years ago.
By most measures, that decision has been successful.
The programme has delivered measurable savings, strengthened internal credibility and given the team access to information that an external provider may not always receive. As employees of the business, internal programme leaders can often build stronger relationships with hiring managers, finance, HR and procurement, while carrying more weight in conversations about rates, data and policy.
Brenda described this clearly during our discussion. When an internal employee asks for information, there is often more willingness to engage. The programme is seen as part of the organisation rather than as a supplier asking the business to change.
That access creates several advantages.
Internal teams can understand the organisation’s culture more deeply. They know how decisions are made, where resistance is likely to come from and which stakeholders need to be involved. They can often access pay data, supplier information and business context that would be harder for an external provider to obtain.
They are also able to position the programme as a business function rather than a service delivered from the outside.
That matters when the programme needs to challenge established behaviour, negotiate rates or bring unmanaged activity under control.
Internal ownership does not mean doing everything alone
The challenge is that internal ownership brings its own pressure.
With an external MSP, the organisation can often ask the provider to resource a new rollout, expand the supplier team or bring in specialist knowledge. In an internal model, every new country, process and governance requirement creates additional demand on the internal team.
As the programme grows, that pressure becomes more visible.
Adding eight countries in 18 months is a significant undertaking for any organisation. Each market requires discovery, stakeholder engagement, local compliance knowledge, system configuration, supplier onboarding, training and ongoing support.
The work does not become simple because the programme is internally managed.
In some cases, it becomes more difficult because the team is expected to maintain day-to-day delivery while also leading expansion.
This is why internal ownership should not be confused with complete self-sufficiency.
A strong internal programme still needs access to specialist support, especially in areas such as country-level compliance, payroll, supplier management, invoicing, tax, worker classification and local stakeholder consultation.
The internal team does not need to carry every capability itself. It does need to know where the expertise sits and how to bring it into the programme at the right time.
The most scalable model is rarely purely internal or external
The debate around internally managed programmes and outsourced MSP models is often presented as a binary choice.
In practice, the strongest model is usually more nuanced.
An internal team may own strategy, governance, stakeholder relationships and executive reporting, while external specialists provide support in specific countries or areas of complexity.
That support may include local compliance advice, payroll infrastructure, supplier management, onboarding, worker classification or implementation support.
The value of this model is that the organisation retains ownership while avoiding the need to build every capability from scratch.
At CXC, we see this frequently. A well-established internal programme may have strong global processes and excellent executive support, but still need help entering a new market where the local tax, invoicing or employment environment is unfamiliar.
That does not mean the internal programme has failed. It means the programme understands where local expertise can reduce risk and accelerate delivery.
The most mature teams tend to be clear about which capabilities they should own and which are better supported by a specialist partner.
Resource needs to grow with responsibility
One of the biggest risks in programme expansion is that responsibility grows faster than resource.
The programme may begin with a relatively focused remit: manage contingent workers, onboard suppliers and maintain the VMS.
Over time, the scope expands.
The team is asked to enter more countries, improve reporting, manage more suppliers, address SOW leakage, support audits, respond to regulatory change and provide executives with a consolidated view of non-employee labour.
The programme becomes more important to the organisation, but the team does not always grow at the same pace.
This creates a dangerous situation.
The programme is expected to deliver enterprise-level governance with a team designed for a much smaller scope.
The result is often a constant trade-off between strategic work and operational delivery. Expansion takes attention away from existing markets. Reporting pulls resource away from supplier management. Compliance work competes with stakeholder support.
A programme cannot scale sustainably if every new requirement depends on the same small group of people working harder.
Resource planning therefore needs to be part of the expansion strategy from the beginning.
Organisations should consider not only how many countries they want to add, but what capabilities each country will require before, during and after launch.
Expansion should be driven by readiness, not ambition alone
There is often pressure to show progress through the number of countries added to the programme.
A rollout plan covering 20 or 30 markets can look impressive at executive level, but country count is not the best measure of success.
A market may be strategically important, but not ready.
The supplier landscape may be fragmented. Local systems may not integrate with the global model. Stakeholders may not yet support the programme. Works council consultation may be required. The local legal environment may need more detailed assessment.
Pushing ahead without addressing those issues may create a go-live date, but it will not necessarily create a functioning programme.
A more scalable approach is to prioritise countries based on a combination of spend, risk, complexity and stakeholder readiness.
High-spend markets may offer the greatest financial opportunity. High-risk markets may require urgent governance. Some countries may have strong local support and relatively simple operating conditions, making them good early candidates. Others may need longer preparation.
A well-executed rollout in five countries creates more value than a poorly adopted rollout in 30.
The goal should not be to move slowly. It should be to move at a pace the programme can support.
Standardise the framework, not every local process
Scalability depends on consistency, but too much standardisation creates its own problems.
The organisation needs a clear global framework. It should define ownership, approval routes, reporting expectations, supplier governance, worker classification principles and the core controls that apply across the programme.
What it should not do is assume every local process can be identical.
The invoicing model that works in one country may fail in another. The supplier route used in a commercial office may not fit a manufacturing site. Stakeholder consultation that is informal in one market may be a legal requirement in another.
The scalable approach is to standardise the framework while allowing controlled local variation.
That means being clear about which elements are non-negotiable and which can be adapted.
Global controls should remain consistent. Local delivery should be flexible enough to make those controls workable.
Without that distinction, organisations tend to end up at one of two extremes.
Either the programme becomes too rigid and markets create workarounds, or the programme becomes so flexible that every country operates differently and global visibility disappears.
Scalability sits between those two positions.
Build reporting before the pressure arrives
As programmes grow, executive visibility becomes increasingly important.
Senior leaders want to know who is working for the organisation, where they are located, what they cost and under which engagement model they sit.
They want to understand supplier performance, unmanaged spend, compliance exposure and the financial value being delivered by the programme.
The difficulty is that many teams begin building this picture only after the questions have been asked.
By then, the pressure is already high.
The data may sit across the VMS, procurement systems, finance platforms, payroll providers and local records. Definitions may differ between functions. SOW activity may not be visible at all.
A scalable programme should build executive-grade reporting before executives demand it.
That does not mean every data issue will be solved immediately. It means the organisation has agreed what needs to be measured, where the information sits and who is responsible for improving it.
Strong reporting does more than prove the programme’s value.
It helps the team prioritise expansion, identify risk, challenge supplier performance and make the case for additional resource.
Without it, the programme may be delivering strong outcomes but struggle to explain them.
Executive sponsorship changes what is possible
Programmes can make progress without executive sponsorship, but there are limits to what they can achieve.
SOW leakage, local supplier activity, workforce classification and inconsistent engagement routes often sit across multiple functions. The programme team may identify the problem, but lack the authority to change it.
Brenda described how the involvement of a new CFO changed the level of attention given to unmanaged spend at Medtronic. Once the initiative became an executive priority, senior stakeholders responded differently.
The programme had a clearer mandate.
That is the value of executive sponsorship.
It gives workforce governance the authority to cross organisational boundaries. It helps the programme access data, challenge existing behaviour and bring areas of unmanaged spend into scope.
But sponsorship needs to be supported by evidence.
Executives are more likely to act when the programme can show the financial, operational and compliance impact of the issue. A request for greater control becomes much more compelling when it is connected to spend, risk and business performance.
The programme therefore needs to communicate in the language of the executive audience.
For finance, that may mean cost, visibility and control. For HR, it may mean workforce risk and worker experience. For procurement, it may mean supplier governance and commercial value.
The underlying issue is the same, but the business case needs to reflect the priorities of the stakeholder.
Make the right engagement route the easiest one
A scalable workforce programme cannot rely on programme specialists reviewing every engagement manually.
The organisation needs processes that help hiring managers make the right decision themselves.
This is particularly important when the choice involves permanent employment, fixed-term contracts, contingent labour, staff augmentation or SOW.
If the correct route is unclear or difficult to access, managers will use the one that feels fastest.
That is how leakage begins.
Some organisations are addressing this by introducing decision tools that guide managers through a series of practical questions before the requirement is created.
The aim is not to turn managers into workforce lawyers. It is to make the engagement process clear enough that they can choose the correct starting point and access support when the situation is uncertain.
This becomes increasingly important as the programme expands.
The larger the organisation, the less realistic it is to depend on informal knowledge or individual programme relationships.
Scalability requires the process to carry some of the governance burden.
Programme maturity depends on what happens after go-live
Expansion plans often focus heavily on implementation.
Discovery is completed, the system is configured, suppliers are onboarded, managers are trained and the country goes live.
The project is then considered complete.
But a scalable programme needs a much stronger post-launch model.
The first few months reveal whether the process works in reality. They show where hiring managers are struggling, where suppliers are bypassing the rules, where local systems do not integrate and where the training failed to change behaviour.
That information should be used to improve the programme.
Post-launch reviews, stakeholder feedback, data analysis and supplier performance monitoring are essential to understanding whether the operating model has been adopted.
Without that follow-up, each rollout risks repeating the same problems.
A scalable programme learns from every country and applies those lessons to the next one.
The next governance challenge may not be human labour
Most workforce programmes are still working to gain complete visibility over contractors, temporary workers, staffing suppliers and SOW engagements.
At the same time, another category is emerging.
AI agents and digital labour are entering enterprise operations quickly. Organisations are using them to complete tasks, support decision-making, automate workflows and perform work that may previously have required human labour.
This creates a new governance question.
Who owns digital labour?
What work is it performing? What does it cost? Which provider supplies it? What risks does it create? How is performance monitored? How does it interact with the human workforce?
These questions are not entirely new.
They closely resemble the questions organisations have struggled to answer about contingent labour and SOW.
Who is working for us? What are they doing? How are they engaged? What do they cost? Who is responsible for the risk?
If organisations treat digital labour only as a technology issue, they may repeat the same governance mistakes.
The teams that have built strong extended workforce governance may be well placed to help answer these questions, because they already understand the complexity of managing labour that sits outside traditional permanent employment.
A practical framework for scalable growth
The organisations that scale successfully tend to follow a common set of principles.
They start with country-level discovery and resist the pressure to configure the system before understanding the market.
They prioritise rollout based on readiness, spend and risk rather than country count alone.
They bring local stakeholders into the process early, including finance, HR, procurement, legal, site leadership, suppliers, works councils and unions where relevant.
They separate policy from adoption and make sure hiring managers have a process they can actually follow.
They design SOW governance before leakage becomes established.
They use the VMS as an enabler, not as the entire solution.
They build reporting before executive pressure exposes the gaps.
They are also realistic about resource and expertise.
Internal ownership can create significant value, but the programme still needs access to specialist support where local complexity demands it.
The strongest operating models combine global governance with local delivery, internal ownership with external expertise, and ambition with proper discovery.
Scale is not measured by the number of countries
A programme is not scalable simply because it has reached more markets.
It is scalable when it can expand while maintaining control, compliance, visibility and stakeholder trust.
That means every new country should strengthen the programme rather than stretch it beyond its limits.
It means the operating model can absorb regulatory change, supplier complexity, reporting pressure and new categories of labour without depending on a handful of people to solve every issue manually.
It also means knowing when to ask for support.
Brenda’s experience at Medtronic shows that internally managed programmes can deliver significant value. They can build credibility, improve access to data and create strong organisational ownership.
But internal ownership does not remove the complexity of global expansion.
The organisations that succeed are the ones that understand where their internal strengths end and where specialist expertise needs to begin.
The final lesson from CWS Europe 2026
Brenda’s closing advice during our conversation at CWS Europe 2026 was simple: “Buckle up, because it is just not going to slow down.”
She is right.
The pace of expansion, regulatory complexity and executive scrutiny are all increasing. Contingent labour is no longer a peripheral workforce category. For many organisations, it is central to how work gets done.
The next phase will be even more complex as contingent labour, SOW and digital labour begin to sit within the same governance conversation.
The programmes that are ready for that future will not necessarily be the ones with the most technology or the largest teams.
They will be the ones with clear ownership, strong reporting, local expertise, executive support and an operating model that can adapt without losing control.
That is what a scalable workforce programme looks like.
CXC has supported global contingent workforce programmes for more than 30 years, across over 100 countries. We’ll help you combine internal ownership with the local compliance, payroll, supplier management and advisory support needed to scale with confidence.
