Mandate and value
Define the business outcomes, first capabilities, decision rights, retained responsibilities and leadership sponsor. Link each capability to a reason the enterprise needs it, not just an available talent pool.
Loading URS Systems…
Loading URS Systems…
A useful feasibility exercise turns expansion goals into explicit choices: what the center will own, where capabilities may sit, how it will be governed and what needs validating before investment.
Leadership needs to decide what an India center should own before committing to a structure, location, hiring plan or investment case.
A feasibility exercise is valuable when it forces leadership to make the choices that will otherwise appear later as delivery problems: what the centre will own, which decisions sit in India, what stays with global teams, how value will be measured, what must be true before work transfers and where the organisation is willing to accept uncertainty.
The GCC model, location and initial team should follow the mandate. A product-engineering centre, a shared-services operation and a mixed technology-and-operations centre need different leadership, talent, systems, workplace, control and transition designs. Treating them as versions of the same headcount plan obscures risk and slows approvals.
URS can structure the decision process across strategy, workplace, people, technology and operating coordination. Financial forecasts, tax positions, legal structure, statutory requirements and regulated opinions need current client inputs and review by appropriately qualified specialists.
The FY2026 Nasscom–Zinnov landscape places 39% of India GCCs in its Portfolio Hub maturity tier and 5% in Transformation Hub. Treat these as ecosystem context, not a target or forecast; the useful decision is which business outcomes, product ownership and leadership authority the center should hold.
The decision is not simply whether to create a centre. It is which work can be responsibly owned, by whom, with which dependencies and evidence of readiness.
Define the business outcomes, first capabilities, decision rights, retained responsibilities and leadership sponsor. Link each capability to a reason the enterprise needs it, not just an available talent pool.
Compare ownership and operating approaches against speed, control, workforce implications, partner boundaries, transition needs and future state. Avoid treating model labels as a substitute for detailed responsibility design.
Map the entity and adviser questions, workplace, hiring, HR, technology, security, controls and service transition. Use stage gates to decide what can launch now and what needs further evidence.
Feasibility should produce a decision-ready view, not an untested presentation. The client owns strategic choices; URS can facilitate the work and coordinate the relevant in-house capability inputs.
| Activity | URS contribution | Client responsibility | Decision or approval |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enterprise mandate and business case inputs | Facilitate capability, dependency and decision framing. | Set strategic priorities, sponsors, investment criteria and risk appetite. | Executive sponsors approve the mandate and investment direction. |
| Model, location and workforce options | Structure comparison criteria and operating implications. | Provide constraints, confirm preferred trade-offs and appoint approvers. | Client leadership selects the operating direction. |
| Readiness workstream design | Coordinate workplace, people, technology and operational planning inputs. | Own entity, adviser, budget, security and policy decisions. | Owners sign off stage-gate evidence. |
| Launch and review governance | Support decision logs, dependencies and review cadence. | Maintain executive accountability and escalation authority. | Leadership accepts residual risks and launch scope. |
The strongest feasibility work makes assumptions explicit, compares options fairly and separates decisions that can be made now from those needing specialist confirmation.
Specify the services, products, platforms or business processes in scope; the outcomes expected; and the authority that follows each responsibility. Make the interfaces with global teams visible, including escalation, acceptance and performance review.
Compare captive, service-led, managed, hybrid or transition approaches using the work to be done, pace, control, workforce and transition requirements. Evaluate locations and workplace options against talent, commute, infrastructure, continuity and leadership needs.
For technology or digitally enabled work, identify access, architecture, data, security, integration, service support and release dependencies early. For operations, define process ownership, controls, knowledge transfer and performance acceptance.
Agree the mandate, sponsor, decision horizon, candidate capability scope, constraints and success measures. Record what is known, assumed and still to be validated.
Compare model, location, workforce, workplace, technology and control implications. Bring in legal, tax, finance, security and other specialist inputs at the points where decisions require them.
Assign owners, dependencies, milestones, evidence and escalation for the workstreams. Decide which initial scope can meet the launch threshold and which work should remain sequenced.
Use acceptance criteria, service routines and leadership reviews to stabilise the first scope. Revisit the mandate as evidence, business needs and capability maturity change.
Those are consequences of the mandate and operating design. Beginning there can lock the programme into a solution before leadership has agreed the problem to solve.
Captive, BOT, managed and hybrid labels carry different expectations. Describe the actual ownership, workforce, governance and transition arrangements.
A date does not prove access, people, support, controls or decision ownership. Use explicit entry and acceptance conditions.
A useful feasibility exercise turns expansion goals into explicit choices: what the center will own, where capabilities may sit, how it will be governed and what needs validating before investment. A useful next step is to document the decision owners, assumptions and information needed to validate the option. A structured decision brief for leadership
A useful feasibility exercise turns expansion goals into explicit choices: what the center will own, where capabilities may sit, how it will be governed and what needs validating before investment. A useful next step is to document the decision owners, assumptions and information needed to validate the option. A structured decision brief for leadership
A draft business mandate, target functions, leadership priorities, workforce expectations, constraints and decision timeline are useful. Early estimates can be marked as assumptions.
The work can identify questions and coordinate interfaces. Legal, tax, accounting and other regulated opinions should come from qualified professionals engaged for that purpose.
Share your priorities, constraints and timing for gCC Strategy & Feasibility. We will route the enquiry to the relevant URS capability team.