More than 1,600 Global Capability Centers are already operating in India alone, with over 80 new ones established in 2023, according to NASSCOM. As GCCs evolve from support hubs to innovation engines, more companies are prioritizing control, talent access, and scalability in their global expansion plans.
But before you even choose a city, there’s a more pressing decision to make: should you build your GCC in-house, or launch it through a partner?
Each approach comes with trade-offs. An in-house setup gives you full ownership and cultural alignment, but it demands time, capital, and regional expertise. A partner-led model offers speed, built-in compliance, and reduced risk—but limits direct control early on.
In this blog, we’ll break down the pros, cons, and practical differences between both models, so you can choose the path that fits your team’s capabilities and your company’s global strategy.
Understanding the Two Approaches
In-House GCC Setup
An in-house GCC is wholly owned and operated by the parent company. This model offers complete control over operations, culture, and strategic direction.
Partner-Led GCC Setup
In a partner-led model, organizations collaborate with external experts who assist in setting up and managing the GCC. This can range from Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) models to fully managed services, where the partner handles operations based on agreed parameters.
In-House vs. Partner-Led GCC Setup: A Detailed Comparison
Ownership and Control
In-house GCC: You retain full ownership and control of the center from day one. This means you manage hiring, operations, systems, and culture directly. It gives you maximum autonomy over strategic decisions and execution.
Partner-led GCC: Control is shared or phased in depending on the model (e.g. BOT). While you define goals, the partner manages the day-to-day setup and early operations. Full control may only transition to you after an agreed timeline.
Speed of Setup
In-house GCC: Establishing a GCC independently takes longer. You’ll need to handle company registration, office setup, compliance, recruitment, and local partnerships from scratch, often taking 6–12 months.
Partner-led GCC: Setup is significantly faster. Partners already have infrastructure, local teams, and compliance frameworks. You can expect to be operational within 2–4 months, depending on the complexity and scale.
Cost Implications
In-house GCC: Initial investment is higher due to upfront expenses in infrastructure, legal compliance, and hiring. Over time, though, you can optimize costs and avoid vendor margins, making it more economical in the long run.
Partner-led GCC: Upfront costs are lower. Most partners operate on a monthly fee or milestone model. While ongoing costs may be slightly higher due to management fees, the model reduces capital risk and setup friction early on.
Talent Acquisition and Expertise
In-house GCC: Building your own hiring pipeline in a new geography takes time and local market knowledge. You may face challenges navigating compensation benchmarks, employer branding, and recruiting at scale.
Partner-led GCC: Partners bring established recruitment engines, local HR knowledge, and a pool of pre-vetted candidates. You can fill key roles faster and more efficiently with minimal hiring overhead.
Compliance and Risk Management
In-house GCC: You’re fully responsible for understanding and adhering to local tax laws, labor codes, data regulations, and entity management. Mistakes can lead to penalties or delays.
Partner-led GCC: Compliance is typically built into the partner’s service. They understand regional regulations, have legal and finance teams in place, and help you avoid costly errors in the setup phase.
Cultural Integration and Process Alignment
In-house GCC: With full control, it’s easier to align teams culturally and operationally. You can embed your tools, processes, and values from day one, leading to a more cohesive global team.
Partner-led GCC: While many partners try to align with your processes, there can be a disconnect in culture or management style early on. Bridging that gap may require time, training, and active collaboration.
Scalability and Flexibility
In-house GCC: Scaling depends on your internal capacity and hiring speed. If you have the resources, it offers flexibility and long-term efficiency. But ramping up quickly can be a challenge.
Partner-led GCC: Partners provide instant scalability through existing talent networks and infrastructure. You can expand faster, launch new verticals, or test capabilities without building everything in-house.
Go Global, 30% Faster – Launch your GCC in India now!
Secure the best location, cut setup costs, and gain a competitive edge—before it’s too late!
Comparing In-House and Partner-Led GCCs
| Aspect | In-House GCC | Partner-Led GCC |
| Ownership | Full ownership and control | Shared or transferred post-transition |
| Setup Time | Longer due to building from scratch | Faster leveraging partner’s existing infrastructure |
| Cost | Higher initial investment | Lower upfront costs; operational expenses ongoing |
| Expertise | Requires internal expertise | Access to partner’s domain and regional expertise |
| Scalability | Slower, dependent on internal resources | Rapid, leveraging partner’s resources |
| Risk | Higher operational and compliance risks | Mitigated through partner’s experience |
Making the Right Choice
The decision between in-house and partner-led GCC setups hinges on factors like budget, desired control, speed to market, and internal expertise.
- Choose In-House if:
- You seek complete control over operations.
- Long-term cost optimization is a priority.
- You have the resources and expertise to manage setup and operations.
- Choose Partner-Led if:
- Speed and reduced initial investment are crucial.
- You lack regional expertise or infrastructure.
- You prefer to mitigate risks associated with compliance and operations.
Conclusion
Choosing between an in-house and partner-led GCC setup is a strategic decision that depends on your company’s goals, resources, and risk appetite. If you have the time, capital, and in-house expertise to manage legal, operational, and talent challenges, building a GCC independently offers complete control and long-term cost benefits. It’s a great fit for enterprises that want to fully embed global teams into their core structure from day one.
On the other hand, a partner-led approach is ideal if speed, reduced risk, and regional expertise are priorities. Partners help you navigate compliance, talent acquisition, and infrastructure challenges, allowing your team to focus on execution rather than administration. This model works especially well for companies entering unfamiliar geographies, launching pilot teams, or looking to de-risk their global expansion.
In reality, many organizations start with a partner-led model and later transition to an in-house operation once their GCC matures. Whichever path you choose, success depends on strategic clarity, operational alignment, and a commitment to building a high-performance team that integrates seamlessly with your global vision.