Most GCC failures have nothing to do with talent availability or cost structures. They fail because of unclear ownership.
When global companies set up capability centers in India, the hardest problems are not about finding engineers or negotiating office leases. The hardest problems emerge when no one knows who decides, who approves, and who is accountable. A brilliant team can be paralyzed by governance gaps. A well-funded center can drift without strategic direction.
Clarity of ownership is the core differentiator in successful GCC setups in India. GCCs are operating models, not hiring tactics. They require decision rights, accountability structures, and leadership alignment across geographies. Without this foundation, even the most promising centers devolve into expensive outsourcing arrangements with none of the control benefits.
This blog breaks down exactly who owns what across HR, legal, finance, and delivery in a functioning GCC. The goal is not theory. The goal is operational clarity that prevents the most common failure patterns we see in the evolution of GCCs from cost centers to strategic hubs.
Ownership means decision authority and accountability for outcomes. Execution means doing the work. Support means enabling the work. These are not the same thing.
Many companies confuse "outsourcing to GCCs" with building a GCC. The mental model is flawed. Outsourcing transfers work to a third party who owns the outcomes. A GCC keeps ownership internal and brings work in-house, even if that house is located in India.
In a true GCC, vendors may support execution. They might help with payroll processing, office management, or compliance filing. But they do not own hiring standards. They do not own product roadmaps. They do not own performance reviews or IP strategy. The parent company owns these.
The distinction matters because ownership determines control. If your vendor controls the employment contracts, they control attrition risk. If they control the delivery roadmap, they control your velocity. If they control the legal entity, they control your exit options.
This is why GCC vs offshore teams discussions must start with ownership mapping. And why companies that treat GCCs like vendor relationships often discover too late that EOR models stop scaling when strategic control is needed.
HR in a GCC is not an administrative function. It is strategic.
The parent company must own hiring standards, role design, performance management, and leadership development. These cannot be delegated without long-term damage. Building GCC culture requires consistent investment from the top, not outsourced to local HR vendors who lack context about your company's values, career frameworks, or strategic priorities.
Common failure patterns emerge when companies abdicate HR ownership. Shadow HR structures form where local leaders make hiring decisions that conflict with global standards. Compensation becomes misaligned with performance. Attrition spikes because career paths are unclear. Teams feel disconnected from the parent company's mission.
Successful GCC teams in India are not built by hiring agencies. They are built by companies that own their employment brand, define their talent profiles, and commit to building GCC culture as deliberately as they would in their headquarters.
This is particularly important in cities like Pune, which is emerging as a global tech talent hub with expectations that match Bangalore and Hyderabad. Talent in these markets evaluates employers based on leadership clarity, growth opportunities, and cultural alignment, not just salary.
Legal ownership is risk containment, not paperwork.
The legal entity setup for a GCC defines control over IP, employment contracts, data protection, and regulatory compliance. If the entity is vendor-controlled or structured through opaque contract arrangements, you do not have a GCC. You have an outsourcing relationship dressed up in GCC language.
Key legal and compliance requirements to start a GCC in India include entity registration, employment law compliance, IP assignment agreements, data localization rules, and transfer pricing documentation. These are not minor details. They determine who can hire, who can fire, who owns the code, and who is liable if something goes wrong.
Companies that delegate legal setup without understanding the implications often discover problems years later when they try to scale, restructure, or exit. Employment disputes surface. IP ownership becomes murky. Tax audits reveal transfer pricing risks that were never addressed.
The smartest companies treat legal ownership as the foundation of their GCC setup in India. They invest early in clean entity structures, transparent contracts, and internal legal oversight. They do not outsource their risk exposure.
For reference on how operating terms should be structured, see our terms and conditions governing GCC operations.
Finance ownership in a GCC is not about cost savings. It is about long-term ROI and performance accountability.
Finance teams must own budgets, compensation bands, unit economics, forecasting, and profitability analysis. They must define GCC ROI metrics that go beyond vendor invoices and track actual value creation. This includes productivity per employee, output quality, strategic contribution, and retention costs.
The danger is treating GCC costs like outsourcing bills. In an outsourcing model, you pay for delivered outputs and the vendor manages internal costs. In a GCC, you own the P&L. You decide on headcount, salaries, bonuses, office investments, and technology spend. If finance does not own this, the GCC becomes a cost center without accountability.
GCC performance metrics should track maturity, not just activity. Are teams taking on more strategic work? Are they contributing to product innovation? Are they building institutional knowledge? These are ROI questions that finance must answer, not vendor account managers.
Tools like our offshore savings calculator help frame initial cost models, but real GCC ROI analysis requires tracking cost efficiency strategies that account for ramp time, attrition, and capability building over multi-year horizons.
Delivery ownership is non-negotiable in a true GCC.
The parent company must own roadmaps, architecture decisions, sprint outcomes, and quality standards. This is where many companies fail. They set up a GCC but treat it like a vendor team with isolation from core planning, limited access to stakeholders, and second-class status in engineering reviews.
GCC metrics should track maturity and strategic contribution, not just story points completed. Are teams contributing to architecture decisions? Are they reducing technical debt? Are they mentoring junior engineers? Are they driving initiatives, not just executing tickets?
AI in GCCs and data analytics & AI in GCCs are powerful enablers, but they are not substitutes for leadership. Automation can improve productivity and surface insights, but ownership of outcomes must remain with human leaders who understand business context and strategic trade-offs.
This is why offshore teams accelerate delivery velocity only when they are integrated into planning and empowered to make decisions. Agile workflows fail when offshore and GCC teams are excluded from sprint planning or treated as output factories.
The difference between GCC vs ODC models is fundamentally about ownership, not capabilities.
An ODC (Offshore Development Center) is typically vendor-managed with execution ownership transferred to the provider. The client sets requirements and the ODC delivers outputs. Ownership of hiring, process, and team management stays with the vendor.
A GCC keeps all ownership internal. The parent company hires directly, owns the entity, sets the culture, and controls the roadmap. The GCC is an extension of the company, not a supplier.
This distinction becomes critical as scale increases. ODC vs GCC models diverge when companies need strategic control, long-term capability building, and cultural integration. An ODC can execute well-defined projects. A GCC can innovate, lead initiatives, and become a strategic hub.
The GCC vs offshore development center decision is about control, not speed. If you need a team to execute a defined scope quickly, an ODC can work. If you are building long-term capabilities that require deep integration with your product, engineering, and business strategy, a GCC is the right model.
For companies stuck between models, it is worth understanding why EOR is not enough for global teams and exploring frameworks like EOR 2.0 offshore engineering that bridge tactical execution and strategic ownership.
EOR (Employer of Record) works early but breaks at scale.
EOR companies provide employment infrastructure without requiring you to set up a legal entity. This is useful when you want to hire a few engineers quickly without legal overhead. But EOR services create ownership gaps when applied to GCC contexts.
In an EOR model, the EOR provider is the legal employer. They own the employment contract, manage payroll, and handle compliance. You control the work but not the employment relationship. This works for small teams but becomes problematic as you scale.
Ownership gaps emerge around culture, performance management, and long-term retention. Employees report to you operationally but are legally employed by a third party. Career development becomes fragmented. Compensation decisions require vendor approval. Termination processes are controlled by the EOR, not you.
Decision signals for when companies should transition from EOR to GCC include hitting 20-30 employees, needing custom compensation structures, wanting to build long-term employer brand, or requiring full control over IP and employment terms.
The transition is not simple. It requires setting up a legal entity, transferring employees, renegotiating contracts, and rebuilding HR and finance infrastructure. Companies that wait too long face higher switching costs and retention risks.
This is why EOR limits long-term scale. It is a tactical solution that enables quick hiring but does not provide the ownership structure needed for strategic capability centers.
Location impacts execution efficiency, not ownership structure.
Bangalore, Hyderabad, Pune, and other cities each have talent density, cost profiles, and ecosystem advantages. But governance matters more than city choice. A well-governed GCC in Pune will outperform a poorly managed one in Bangalore.
Pune is becoming a preferred GCC location for companies that value lower attrition, proximity to Bangalore's ecosystem, and a growing talent pool with multinational experience. See why Pune is becoming a global tech talent hub for more context.
The point is not to over-index on location. The point is to get ownership right first, then optimize for operational factors like talent availability, cost, and office infrastructure.
The future of GCC outsourcing is ownership-first, automation-enabled.
AI-driven automation in GCCs will amplify governance, not replace it. Automation can streamline HR operations, improve finance reporting, and enhance delivery analytics. But it cannot substitute for leadership, strategic decision-making, or accountability.
Where AI fits: automating interview scheduling, compensation benchmarking, performance tracking, budget forecasting, code reviews, and incident analysis. These are high-volume, rule-based activities where automation improves efficiency without changing ownership.
Where AI does not fit: deciding who to hire, setting product strategy, managing cultural integration, or resolving cross-functional conflicts. These require judgment, context, and accountability that remain human responsibilities.
The companies winning in this space are those building AI-native GCC strategies that use automation to amplify their governance capabilities, not outsource their decision-making.
Aumni builds GCCs as operating models, not staffing arrangements.
Our approach starts with governance design, ownership clarity, and scale-readiness. We help companies define decision rights, accountability structures, and integration frameworks before hiring the first engineer. This prevents the ownership gaps that cause most GCC failures.
We are a GCC operating partner, not a vendor. We support execution but do not replace internal ownership. Our clients own their entity, hire their teams, set their strategy, and control their outcomes. We provide the infrastructure, process expertise, and operational support to make it work.
This model is documented in our GCC system solution, which covers legal setup, HR infrastructure, finance operations, and delivery integration. For examples of how this works in practice, see our case studies.
1. What is the biggest mistake companies make when setting up a GCC in India?
Treating the GCC like an outsourcing arrangement instead of an operating model. This creates ownership gaps across HR, legal, finance, and delivery that compound over time.
2. How is a GCC different from working with an offshore vendor?
A GCC is an internal capability center you own and control. An offshore vendor is a third party you contract with. The difference is ownership of people, process, IP, and outcomes.
3. Who should own HR in a GCC?
The parent company must own hiring standards, performance management, and culture. Local HR teams can execute processes, but strategic HR ownership cannot be delegated.
4. What are the key legal requirements to start a GCC in India?
Entity registration, employment law compliance, IP assignment agreements, data protection compliance, and transfer pricing documentation. These must be owned internally, not outsourced.
5. How do I get started with a GCC setup in India?
Start with ownership design, not hiring. Define decision rights, accountability structures, and integration frameworks. Then build the legal, HR, and finance infrastructure to support them. Explore our resources or contact us to discuss your specific needs.
