Global Capability Centers (GCCs) have become a cornerstone of enterprise strategy. In 2024 alone, over 600 new GCCs were launched across global delivery markets, with India leading the charge. Around 50% of these were assisted or set up directly by providers, often through Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) or hybrid models.
This rapid expansion is driven by the need for transformation-scale talent, 24×7 delivery resilience, and cost optimization. But speed is only one side of the story. As enterprises move quickly to establish new centers, many encounter execution-level surprises that impact the pace, quality, or sustainability of their builds.
The hidden complexity behind execution
Despite strong intent, experienced partners, and detailed playbooks, GCC setups often run into friction. These issues typically do not surface at the strategy or design phase. Instead, they appear once execution begins and decisions meet ground realities.
Here are seven common “aha moments” that many enterprise teams face during early-stage GCC setup.
1. Costs aren’t apples to apples
Salary benchmarks in markets like India may look favorable, but total compensation often includes gratuity, leave encashment, LTA, HRA, and other benefits unfamiliar to source-market teams. These can materially shift cost expectations if not modeled in advance.
2. Hiring the right leader takes time
The ideal GCC leader must align with enterprise culture, understand the local talent market, and build stakeholder trust. This combination is rare and typically takes longer to find than most timelines allow for.
3. Global HR policies need thoughtful localization
Leave policies, notice periods, and employee benefits often require adaptation. In markets like India, faster career progression and more frequent title changes are common expectations. Global frameworks may not align unless adjusted early.
4. Tech environments require alignment
Local teams may operate with tools or infrastructure that are not compatible with enterprise architecture or security policies. Standardizing tech stacks and ensuring governance requires both time and senior IT involvement.
5. BOT transitions come with hidden complexity
In BOT models, enterprises often discover that knowledge, tooling, and leadership do not transfer as cleanly as expected. Without a structured transition plan, key continuity risks can surface post-handover.
6. Facilities and infrastructure are not always turnkey
Even in mature delivery locations, fit-out delays, shared leases, and access control issues can disrupt ramp-up timelines. These physical elements are often underestimated compared to talent or technology readiness.
7. Choosing the wrong partner can slow momentum
Some setup partners or providers may overextend promises or underdeliver on flexibility. Misalignment in working styles, governance, or transparency often becomes apparent only after key milestones are underway.
What enterprises can do differently
The most successful GCC setups are those that bring operational discipline to early decisions. Enterprises should validate local cost, talent, and infrastructure assumptions through bottom-up analysis rather than relying only on benchmarks. Leadership hiring must start early to shape culture and drive alignment with business units from day one.
HR policies should be co-developed with local input to reflect not just legal requirements but also employee expectations, especially around growth and progression. Technology assessments must be conducted early to surface integration issues and security gaps.
BOT transitions should follow a structured playbook that defines ownership of people, tools, and knowledge across phases. Partner selection should factor in transparency, cultural fit, and adaptability, not just capabilities. Compliance planning must start as early as entity setup, with clear accountability across legal, tax, and finance.
GCCs that succeed are not necessarily those that move fastest, but those that anticipate complexity and stay responsive to it. Local insight, structured execution, and early cross-functional alignment are what separate scalable GCCs from struggling ones.
Final thoughts
As GCC models mature and become increasingly provider-supported, execution is where real differentiation happens. These early “aha” moments are not failures. They are feedback. Enterprises that listen to these signals, adapt early, and execute with local depth are far better positioned to build GCCs that are not just cost-effective but truly future-ready.
More importantly, the ability to anticipate and respond to these moments often separates transactional setups from strategic ones. GCCs are no longer just delivery engines. When built right, they become embedded extensions of enterprise innovation, talent, and transformation agendas.
If you found this blog interesting, check out Beyond The Hype: Unpacking The Risks Associated With Global Capability Centers (GCCs) | Blog – Everest Group, which delves deeper into another topic regarding GCC.
If you have any questions or want to discuss the evolution of GCCs in more depth, please contact Akshay Mathur ([email protected])
