Ulrich Model: Structure, Practice & Criticism

The Ulrich Model is one of the most widely adopted frameworks for structuring HR functions. Introduced by Dave Ulrich in the late 1990s, it offered a transformative approach to HR—positioning the function as a strategic partner to the business, not just an administrative support.

The Three Core Components

The model splits the HR function into three distinct but interdependent elements:

1. HR Business Partners (HRBPs) – Embedded in business units, they focus on strategic alignment, talent needs, and leadership support.
2. Centers of Expertise (CoEs) – Specialist teams that design and own programs (e.g. talent management, compensation, DEI).
3. HR Shared Services (or Operations) – Centralized function delivering transactional services, often supported by tech and automation.

Each plays a role in the “delivery triangle” of strategy, expertise, and execution.

Why It Took Off

Ulrich’s model became popular because it:

• Clarified roles in an increasingly complex HR environment
• Promised both efficiency and strategic impact
• Matched the business partner model rising in other functions (e.g. IT, Finance)
• Offered a modular structure that could scale globally

By creating dedicated paths for strategic and operational work, the model allowed HR to break out of the “generalist-does-everything” trap.

Real-World Variations

Few companies implement the Ulrich model in its purest form. Adaptations include:

• “Mini-CoEs” embedded in business units
• Tiered service centers with bots or AI triage
• Matrixed models where HRBPs report to both HR and business leaders

These variations reflect industry, scale, maturity, and digital readiness.

The Criticism: Where It Breaks

Despite its legacy, the Ulrich model has drawn significant critique:

• Over-specialization: Teams operate in silos, lacking shared goals or workflows.
• Diluted accountability: Who owns the employee experience? The BP, the CoE, or the service center?
• Underpowered HRBPs: Many are expected to “be strategic” without the skills, data, or time to deliver.
• Rigidness: The model can feel inflexible in fast-changing environments or small-to-mid-sized firms.

What the Data Says

A 2023 survey by Corporate Research Forum (CRF) found that:

• 72% of organizations use some form of the Ulrich model
• Only 38% believe it helps them meet strategic HR goals
• The top challenge reported was lack of role clarity between HRBPs and CoEs

Keep or Replace?

The Ulrich model isn’t dead—but it must evolve. For many organizations, the core idea of splitting strategic, expert, and transactional work remains valid. But:

• The boundaries must be flexible
• HRBPs need development and data access
• CoEs must collaborate and co-create, not just design in isolation
• Shared Services must adopt a product mindset—not just process delivery

In Context

In the rest of this section, we’ll look at agile models, platform-based approaches, and networked teams—each of which builds upon or responds to the limitations of traditional HR structures like Ulrich’s. Understanding where you’re starting from helps you evolve toward something that fits better for tomorrow.