Capability Center-as-a-Service: Why the GCC Boom Is Creating Its Own Industry

As more companies look to build capability centers in India, a new market is forming around GCC setup, scaling, transformation, AI-first operating models, talent, governance, and execution support. The center may carry the company’s name, but the road into that ownership is increasingly being built with outside help.

When Building a GCC Needs Outside Help

In 2025, Dai-ichi Life, one of Japan’s largest life insurers, partnered with Capgemini to set up its first global capability center outside Japan in Hyderabad, under a build-operate-transfer model aimed at strengthening internal digital capability across AI, data analytics, cybersecurity, and global operations.

For a company with more than a century of institutional history, the decision says something important about where the GCC market is moving. Dai-ichi Life wants the long-term control of an owned capability base in India, and it is using a services partner to help build the route into that ownership.

This is the market opening behind Capability Center-as-a-Service (CaaS), an integrated, partner-supported route for designing, building, launching, and potentially scaling a GCC toward enterprise ownership. Different providers may support distinct parts of that journey, from advisory and setup to BOT, technology, talent, real estate, legal, tax, and transformation.

Companies are still drawn to GCCs because they want deeper control over talent, data, platforms, AI, and operating knowledge, while the work of building a center has become specialized enough to create its own support industry.

City selection, entity setup, tax planning, leadership hiring, talent mapping, office design, transition, governance, and early operations now sit inside a growing market of advisory firms, technology-services companies, BOT operators, real-estate partners, legal and tax specialists, hiring firms, and transformation teams that help companies move from intent to execution without treating the GCC build as a lonely internal experiment.

The scale of the support industry is already visible in how capability-center work is being packaged. EY’s Capability Center-as-a-Service model brings strategy, tax, legal, real estate, transition, operations, talent-market knowledge, and delivery methodology into one GCC-build route, with more than 300 multinational clients having used Ernst &Young for their GCC journeys.

The larger signal is clear: companies still want the control of an owned center, but the road into that ownership is being assembled by specialists who understand the early choices that decide whether a GCC becomes a real capability base or another busy offshore site.

Build-operate-transfer models are another sign of how the GCC market is moving into a middle space between external support and eventual ownership. ANSR’s BOT approach for GCCs is built around the idea of creating “transfer-ready” operations, where the enterprise’s talent, culture, brand experience, and operating model are shaped before the center moves into the company’s own hands. Companies want their own capability centers, with their own culture and long-term memory, while using external partners to reduce the risk and disorder of early build.

The nature of GCC work is changing fast enough to alter how these centers need to be built from the beginning. Companies are using India-based capability centers for AI, data, cloud, cybersecurity, finance transformation, product engineering, analytics, and process intelligence, while EY’s research on agentic AI in GCCs found that 83% of GCCs are engaging with GenAI adoption and 58% are actively developing agentic capabilities.

The shift matters because these centers are now expected to work with autonomous workflows, governance discipline, and AI-led operating models. A GCC built for that kind of work needs platform thinking, talent depth, review discipline, and enough enterprise trust to carry work that keeps changing.

Capability Center-as-a-Service gives companies a faster route into a market that still demands serious setup discipline. It can reduce early confusion around location, hiring, governance, transition, and operating design and can help companies avoid learning every India setup lesson through trial and error. It can also bring mid-sized and fast-scaling firms into a model that once looked mainly available to the largest enterprises.

The real test begins after the launch, when the center has to prove that it can carry responsibility. A build partner can help set up the center, hire the first teams, shape the operating model, and stabilize the early phase, but the enterprise still must make the decisions that give the center meaning.

The GCC boom is now creating a market of firms that help companies build, scale, run, and transform these centers, and that market can accelerate maturity when used with clarity. A GCC launched quickly can still become a captive vendor if ownership exists on paper while real authority stays elsewhere.

The New GCC Customer Wants Speed Without Chaos

The companies entering the GCC market now are not always the patient giants that built India centers over a decade. Many are retailers, airlines, insurers, software firms, PE-backed companies, specialist manufacturers, and mid-sized global businesses that need serious capability quickly.

They want India teams close to digital operations, data, cloud, AI, cybersecurity, finance, product, and customer workflows, but they cannot afford a slow experimental build where the first two years are spent correcting weak location choices, thin leadership, unclear mandates, and poor operating design.

This is why the GCC-build market is becoming more professional. Nasscom and Zinnov’s work on India’s mid-market GCC momentum says India now has more than 480 mid-market GCCs employing over 210,000 people, with 35% of these centers set up in the last two years. The signal is important because these firms are large enough to need owned capability, while often lean enough to feel every avoidable mistake in leadership time, hiring churn, slow trust-building, and delayed delivery.

The newer examples make the shift easier to see. US retail group Catalyst Brands, formed from the merger of J.C. Penney and Sparc Group and owner of brands such as Aeropostale, Brooks Brothers, Nautica, and Lucky Brand, is expanding its Bengaluru GCC to about 1,000 people by the end of 2026. The center already supports digital operations, creative services, planning, allocation, customer support, and AI pilots such as automated product descriptions.

Southwest Airlines gives the same pattern from another sector. The airline is expanding its first Global Innovation Center outside the US in Hyderabad, with plans to grow toward 1,000 employees and an initial focus on platform, cloud, and network engineering before moving into data science and machine learning. For an airline, such a center sits close to reliability, systems, customer experience, scheduling, and operational continuity.

This is where Capability Center-as-a-Service becomes relevant at a deeper level. The value is in its ability to reduce early design mistakes in a model where early mistakes are expensive. A firm can recover from a delayed hire but it is harder to recover from a weak center charter, the wrong leadership profile, a location mismatch, poor work selection, weak links to headquarters, or an operating model that makes India look busy without making it influential.

The build industry around GCCs exists because companies are no longer asking only whether they can set up in India. They are asking whether the center can become useful quickly without inheriting the bad habits of a rushed build. Firms that enter the market with clarity will use CaaS and setup partners to compress the learning curve.

The Build Industry Is Really Selling a Shorter Learning Curve

The build industry around GCCs sells setup speed, but its real value sits in pattern recognition. Experienced builders bring knowledge of location and talent markets, leadership design, work-selection and transition patterns, governance, and early operating-model decisions.

They have seen how early designs begin to bend out of shape when leadership roles are written too small, transition plans move faster than the operating model can support, hiring assumptions are borrowed from another company, governance meetings track activity without giving India more authority, or career paths fail to give serious people a reason to stay. A company entering India for the first time can learn these lessons slowly and expensively. A capable build partner helps it avoid the obvious traps before they become the center’s habits.

The speed promise is already visible across the GCC support market. Datamatics frames its GCC-as-a-Service model around faster setup, control, talent access, flexibility, and the ability to go live far quicker than a traditional build, which shows what companies are really trying to reduce in the first phase: delay, internal strain, and the uncertainty of building a capability center without enough local experience.

The workspace market is adjusting to the same demand. In Hyderabad, Table Space added nearly 500,000 square feet amid rising GCC and enterprise demand, a signal that companies want scalable, ready-to-operate environments while they build the talent, governance, and operating rhythm around the center.

City selection is becoming more layered as well. Zinnov’s analysis of India’s six leading GCC cities says Bengaluru, Hyderabad, Delhi-NCR, Mumbai, Pune, and Chennai host around 92% of India’s GCCs, which explains why many companies still begin with the familiar hubs.

That concentration also makes the decision harder. The best city for a product engineering center may differ from the best city for finance operations, cyber talent, customer analytics, or long-term support roles. A rushed location choice can lock a company into the wrong talent market before the center has even learned to stand.

This is where Capability Center-as-a-Service becomes useful beyond the marketing label. The right partner should help a company think through the first architecture of the center: which work moves first, which work waits, which roles need enterprise exposure, which parts of the process need documentation before transition, which leadership profile fits the mandate, and which city gives the center the strongest chance of maturing.

The companies that understand this will use CaaS as a way to build with more discipline from the beginning. They will treat external support as scaffolding for ownership, not a substitute for judgment.

GCC Setup Is Now Its Own Market

A company building a GCC today must make several early choices that will shape the center for years. It has to decide where the center should sit, which talent market fits the mandate, which roles should move first, how leadership connects with headquarters, how work transitions, how data and tools are accessed, and how the center grows without becoming a larger version of a weak process. These choices now carry too much consequence to be treated as routine expansion work.

This is why GCC setup is becoming a specialist market. Companies want partners who understand location strategy, hiring depth, transition planning, governance, operating rhythm, and the difference between a center that opens smoothly and a center that matures into real capability. Accenture’s 2025 GCC Services report based on ISG’s Provider Lens study treats GCC Design and Setup as a distinct provider category alongside Optimization and Enhancement, which shows how the act of building the center has become part of the value chain.

The real-estate market is reflecting the same shift in a more visible way. JLL reported that GCC leasing in India reached a record 31 million square feet in 2025, with the top six cities developing sector-focused GCC clusters and Tier-2 cities beginning to appear as future expansion frontiers. That is not only an office-space story. It shows companies matching sectors, functions, cities, and talent pools more deliberately as GCCs move closer to business-critical work.

The first design errors often look harmless at launch. A company may choose a city because peers are there, hire leaders who understand delivery but lack enterprise influence, move work before the process is stable, or begin with roles that are easy to fill instead of roles that prove the center’s value. These choices become expensive later, when the center struggles to gain trust, retain strong people, or move beyond execution.

GCCs Have to Be Built for AI-Native Work Now

A GCC built five years ago could still begin with familiar questions around teams, tools, reporting lines, process migration, and delivery ownership. A GCC being built now must account for agents, automation, data access, human review, governance, and the points where AI enters the flow of work. The build problem has changed because the center is increasingly expected to shape how work is done.

Capability Center-as-a-Service has to mature with that shift. A newer center needs an operating model where people and intelligent systems can work together without creating confusion around accountability. PwC India’s note on GBS and agentic AI argues that agentic AI is reshaping the architecture of global business services and GCCs, including performance metrics, business outcomes, and governance frameworks for AI accountability.

For a company building a center now, the question is practical: what can AI handle, where does human judgment enter, how are exceptions routed, and how will the business know whether the work has actually improved?

The platform market is pushing the same expectations into enterprise operations. ServiceNow’s Autonomous Workforce launch describes AI specialists built for enterprise work with scope, authority, and governance, while Amit Zavery, the company’s president and chief product officer, framed the demand as AI that gets work done rather than more pilots.

GCCs matter in this shift because they are often where enterprise work becomes structured enough for automation to be tested, reviewed, and scaled. A weak build will let AI accelerate messy workflows. A strong build can turn the center into a place where AI is applied with control.

That raises the quality bar for the CaaS industry. A setup partner cannot stop at people, space, and transition. It has to help design the first version of an AI-ready operating model with clear process maps, usable data boundaries, approved-tool rules, escalation points, review standards, and metrics that show whether AI is improving the work. A finance GCC using AI for reconciliation support, customer-operations GCC using AI agents on service tickets, and a product-engineering GCC using AI assistants inside code review each need a different design.

Companies that treat AI as an add-on after launch will create avoidable repair work later. AI affects role design, hiring, skills, review habits, data governance, productivity measurement, and the level of decision-making that can safely move into the center. A company may launch faster by postponing those questions, but it may then spend the next two years building controls around tools already sitting inside daily work.

A stronger GCC build starts with a clearer operating choice. Which parts of the center’s work should remain human-led, which can be AI-assisted, which can become agentic over time, and which need tighter control because the cost of error is high? That choice decides whether the center becomes a real capability base or an office trying to catch up with tools that have already changed the work.

The Real Test Comes at Handover

The cleanest promise in a build-operate-transfer model sits in the final word: transfer. A partner can build the center, run the early operations, hire the first teams, stabilize the workflows, and reduce the pressure of the first phase. The real test comes when the enterprise has to carry the center without leaning on the builder’s operating muscle.

This is why handover has to be designed from the first day. KPMG’s GCC services analysis describes the greenfield model as offering full ownership and control with significant investment, while build-operate-transfer allows companies to move toward ownership after an initial period managed by an external provider.

The difference sounds straightforward in a model chart. In practice, it raises harder questions: what exactly is being transferred, who holds the knowledge, how ready are the leaders, how much of the operating rhythm belongs to the company, and how dependent is the center on the partner after the formal handover?

A weak transfer is easy to recognize later. The employees move onto the company’s rolls, the office branding changes, the reporting lines are updated, and yet the center still struggles to operate independently. Process knowledge sits with the outgoing partner.

Hiring relationships are not fully internalized. Local leaders are strong on delivery but light on enterprise influence. Governance meetings continue, but the real decision-making still happens elsewhere. The company has technically acquired the center without fully absorbing the capability.

This is where the CaaS industry needs to be judged more carefully. A good partner should not only show how fast the center can launch. It should show whether the GCC is becoming genuinely transfer-ready, with leadership depth, documented and owned processes, clear decision rights, internal talent pipelines, client-owned operating metrics, and progressively less dependence on the build partner.

Everest Group’s work on holistic GCC setup solutions makes the same point from a different angle. Its 2025 analysis of GCC setup partnerships and pitfalls argues that governance is critical in these builds, with a single accountable owner carrying the program from design to build to run. That is the kind of discipline a handover needs. If ownership is everyone’s responsibility in theory, it can become no one’s responsibility when the center starts moving from partner-supported build into enterprise-run capability.

The transfer question also changes how companies should think about talent. The first hiring wave cannot be built only for delivery volume. It has to include people who can carry memory after the partner steps back: leaders who can speak to headquarters, managers who understand the enterprise’s language, process owners who know why the work was designed a certain way, and teams trained to improve the model rather than simply run it. A center that depends on the builder to explain itself has not really been transferred.

This is the layer that separates a useful CaaS model from a polished setup exercise. The launch may create the center, but the handover decides whether the capability belongs to the company in any meaningful sense. Companies using CaaS will treat transfer as a maturity path, with ownership built into the operating model from the beginning. Companies using it poorly will discover too late that a center can be handed over on paper while the real capability remains somewhere else.

Services Firms Are Moving Closer to Ownership

Capability Center-as-a-Service is changing the old boundary between captive and vendor models. A company may want its own India center, its own leadership, its own talent brand, and its own long-term operating memory, while still using external firms to design, build, optimize, and improve the center. The result is a more layered market where ownership and partnership sit inside the same model.

The analyst market is already treating GCC services as its own category. ISG’s 2025 Provider Lens study, reflected in Accenture’s GCC Services report, evaluates providers across GCC Design and Setup, and Optimization and Enhancement. That structure is useful because it shows the GCC support market maturing beyond basic setup. The work now includes helping enterprises build the center, improve it, and keep it relevant as mandates change.

This matters because many GCCs are no longer simple captive islands. A company may keep strategic ownership of product engineering, data, cyber, AI, finance, or platform work while still relying on outside partners for cloud migration, automation, hiring support, transition management, governance design, or specialist delivery. The center becomes the owned core, and the service market becomes the ecosystem around it.

HCLTech’s recognition in ISG’s GCC Services 2025 study points to the same market shape, with the report covering both GCC design and setup, and optimization and enhancement. The wording matters because the provider’s role does not end when the center opens. Many companies will need help after launch: improving workflows, bringing in automation, strengthening governance, redesigning processes, scaling specialist teams, and turning the center from a delivery site into a stronger operating unit.

This is where CaaS becomes more than a launch model. It creates a service layer around ownership. A legal partner may help with entity and tax structure, a talent partner may help with leadership hiring, a real-estate partner may shape the first footprint, a technology firm may support cloud and data foundations, and an operations partner may stabilize the early delivery rhythm.

Over time, some of that work moves inside the GCC, while some remains external because the provider has specialist depth the center does not need to build permanently. The goal is to decide which capabilities belong in the GCC’s long-term operating memory, and which are better retained with specialist partners.

Oliver Wyman’s 2025 analysis of India’s GCC evolution captures this well by arguing that headquarters, GCCs, and service providers need to work around enterprise-level mandates and translate them into a few clear outcomes the center will own, such as becoming the global data and analytics backbone. That is the useful direction for this market: the provider helps shape and support the capability, while the enterprise decides what the GCC is meant to own.

The old debate asked whether a company should outsource or build a captive center. The more practical question now is how much ownership the company needs, where partners can accelerate the build, and which capabilities should remain outside because specialist providers can carry them better. Capability Center-as-a-Service grows in that middle space. It lets companies move toward ownership without pretending that every part of the GCC journey has to be built alone.

The Real Choice Is What the Company Should Own

Capability Center-as-a-Service becomes sharper when companies stop treating the GCC as one fixed model. A center can be built for engineering ownership, analytics depth, cyber resilience, finance transformation, customer operations, AI enablement, product support, or long-term process control.

Each version asks for a different level of authority, leadership, tooling, documentation, and connection to headquarters. The build may be supported by outside partners, but the ownership choices have to come from the business itself.

Dun & Bradstreet’s Rethinking the Future of Global Capability Centers 2025 report describes an “Assisted DIY” route where companies use external advisory and execution support while preserving greater control over the design and build. The phrase is useful because it captures where the market is heading. Companies want help with the hard mechanics of setup, while keeping enough control over the center’s mandate, operating standards, and future role to make it feel like their own institution.

The model may also change as the center matures. A company may begin with partner-supported setup, internalize leadership once the first operating rhythm stabilizes, keep specialist services outside where permanent ownership makes little sense, and use managed partners around the edges while the GCC carries the work that builds enterprise memory. A retailer building a digital operations hub will need a different mix from an insurer building AI and cyber capability, or a software firm building product engineering depth. The structure has to follow the work.

The wider market is already moving around that flexibility. CGI’s GCC services model positions capability centers as delivery hubs that combine managed services, agility, resilience, innovation, and AI-first operations. The important signal is that providers are no longer speaking only about staffing or setup. They are positioning themselves around operating choices that help companies decide which capabilities to own, which ones to support externally, and how the center should evolve as the business changes.

This is where CaaS becomes more strategic than a launch service. It gives companies support around location, hiring, transition, infrastructure, governance, and early operations, while forcing a deeper decision about what should sit inside the company’s own walls.

A finance workflow may be supported by a partner in the first phase, then brought closer once the operating knowledge becomes valuable. A cyber function may need stronger internal control from the start. A data platform team may need ownership because definitions, access, and business trust matter as much as technical skill.

The companies that use this market well will be clear about what they are buying. They are buying a faster and cleaner route toward ownership, not ownership itself. The partner can reduce setup friction, bring pattern recognition, and help avoid early mistakes.

The enterprise still has to decide which capabilities deserve to become part of its operating memory, which leaders should carry authority, and where external support should remain part of the model. That is the real choice inside Capability Center-as-a-Service. The build is easier to support now, but ownership still has to be designed.

The First Team Sets the Culture

A GCC’s first hundred hires often matter more than the number suggests. They set the habits of the center long before the enterprise starts measuring maturity. They decide how problems are escalated, how much context is captured, how confidently India speaks to headquarters, how decisions are documented, and whether the center learns to behave like an extension of delivery or an emerging part of the enterprise.

That makes talent design one of the hardest parts of Capability Center-as-a-Service. A build partner can help fill roles, map salaries, run hiring drives, and create the first operating team, but the company still has to decide what kind of people the center needs if it is expected to grow into real capability. A center built around narrow task execution will hire differently from one expected to carry product judgment, AI adoption, cybersecurity resilience, finance transformation, or customer-operations intelligence.

The shift is already visible in how India-based GCC leaders are speaking about hiring. Kimberly-Clark’s Deena Dayalan told Reuters that AI is pushing India technology hubs to place more weight on domain and product expertise, with routine programming increasingly automated and companies looking for people who can apply technology to business problems in areas such as supply chain and retail.

The Reuters report also noted that Kimberly-Clark is prioritizing experienced workers and building AI training across its workforce, which points to a wider change in GCC talent design. The first team cannot be staffed only for what the center will do in month one. It has to be built for the judgment the center will need in year three.

The first leadership layer carries even more weight. A GCC head who can keep delivery stable is useful, but the center needs leaders who can earn trust from headquarters, explain trade-offs, push back on weak transitions, attract serious talent, and turn India capability into enterprise confidence. The same applies one level below. Product leads, data leads, cyber leads, finance transformation leads, and operations heads are not only managing teams. They are translating the company’s ambition into daily behavior.

A rushed build often gets this wrong. It hires for availability, fills seats quickly, and assumes the center can mature after launch. Early habits harden faster than companies expect. If the first team is trained to wait for instructions, the center will struggle to develop ownership later. If the first leaders are kept away from business context, the center will learn to report progress without shaping outcomes. If the first operating rhythm rewards volume over judgment, the GCC may scale while staying thin in influence.

CaaS providers can help by slowing down the right decisions instead of simply speeding up the build. They can help define the first leadership profile, separate roles that need domain depth from roles that need delivery discipline, design onboarding around enterprise context, and build the first workflows, so the center learns how the company thinks. That is more valuable than recruitment speed alone because the earliest people become the center’s cultural template.

Launch Speed Is Not GCC Maturity

Capability Center-as-a-Service can make a GCC easier to launch, but maturity still has to be built inside the center. A firm can open on schedule, hire the first wave, move the first workflows, and show a clean transition plan while the deeper questions remain unresolved.

Does the center have decision rights? Are leaders close enough to headquarters? Is AI being used with discipline? Is product, data, or platform knowledge accumulating in India? Is the center becoming more useful with time, or only larger?

That gap is already visible across the GCC market. BCG’s work on rewriting the global capability center playbook found that only 8% of GCCs had advanced significantly across innovation, competitive differentiation, and operational efficiency, the three dimensions it links most closely to enterprise value.

The finding is useful because it separates launch from maturity. A build partner can help create the center. The center still needs mandate, leadership, operating design, and time before it becomes a real source of enterprise advantage.

The first scorecard often tells only part of the story. Seats filled, roles transitioned, systems connected, and workflows stabilized are necessary signs of progress, but they do not prove that the GCC is becoming important. A better scorecard asks whether the India team is learning the business faster, whether its leaders are involved earlier in decisions, whether the center is reducing dependency on scattered external teams, whether AI is improving work under control, and whether headquarters is trusting the center with harder problems.

BCG’s research also found that more than 90% of top-performing GCCs had established or expanded AI-led centers of excellence in the previous 18 months, while stronger centers were more likely to host significant global roles and operate with clearer decision models.

Those details matter because they show what maturity looks like in practice. It is less about how quickly the center scales and more about whether the center is close enough to decisions, data, platforms, and business outcomes to shape how the enterprise works.

This is where CaaS should be judged over time. A useful partner will help the company reach go-live, while also helping it build the conditions for maturity: a clear charter, credible first leaders, disciplined work selection, operating reviews that change decisions, and signals that show when the center is ready for more responsibility. A weaker version will celebrate launch metrics and leave the enterprise with a center that runs work without gaining influence.

The companies that understand the difference will treat launch as the start of the build, not proof that the build is complete. They will ask from the first year how the center becomes more capable in year two, more trusted in year three, and more central to the enterprise after that. CaaS can shorten the setup curve. It cannot replace the slower work of turning a new center into a place where the company learns, builds, governs, and improves.

Easier to Launch, Harder to Make Strategic

Capability Center-as-a-Service will make the GCC market bigger because it lowers the pain of entry. More firms can now look at India with confidence, shape a first mandate, hire leaders, move work, stabilize operations, and reach a functioning center without learning every setup lesson through trial and error.

A model that once looked practical mainly for large multinationals is becoming available to mid-sized firms, PE-backed companies, specialist retailers, insurers, software businesses, and global firms that need owned capability without spending years building every layer alone.

The larger meaning is that GCC creation has become an industry of its own. Around the owned center now sits a market of builders, advisors, operating partners, workspace providers, talent firms, legal and tax specialists, technology firms, and transformation teams. Some help firms enter India. Some help them scale.

Some help them move from setup into maturity. Some help redesign the center once the original mandate becomes too small for the work now expected of it. The GCC remains the company’s own institution, while the path into that institution is increasingly assembled with outside experience.

That industry will create better centers for companies that use it with clarity. A capable build partner can shorten the learning curve, reduce weak early choices, and help avoid expensive mistakes around location, leadership, work selection, governance, AI-readiness, and operating design. It can give leaner firms access to a model they may never have attempted through a cold internal build. For companies that already know what they want the center to own, CaaS can become a faster route into serious capability.

The danger is convenience without a mandate. A company can launch the center, hire quickly, transition work, and look mature before the center has earned real authority. A GCC becomes valuable when the enterprise knows what it is willing to place inside the center, which leaders have the right to shape decisions, how India connects to the global business, and how the center will move from execution into capability. The setup industry can help with the build. The meaning of ownership still has to come from the company.

The companies that get this right will use Capability Center-as-a-Service as scaffolding for ownership. They will let specialists help with the mechanics while keeping the hard decisions close: mandate, leadership, work selection, AI posture, operating model, and the long-term role of the center inside the enterprise. The companies that get it wrong will reach the launch faster and still end up with a center that behaves like a dressed-up delivery site.

The GCC boom is creating more than new offices in India. It is creating a new industry around ownership itself. The next test will be whether companies use that industry to build capability with more discipline, or whether they simply reach a weak model more efficiently.