by Insight Global Staff 
Global capability centers have become a core part of how enterprises scale operations, access talent, and support global delivery. Many organizations have made significant long-term investments in these centers with clear expectations around cost efficiency, capacity, and performance.
But in practice, not all centers are scaling as planned.
Across established GCC markets, companies are encountering a common challenge. Hiring timelines are extending. Attrition remains elevated. And in some cases, the gap between planned and actual headcount is beginning to impact the original business case.
Industry data reflects this pressure. More than half of GCCs identify talent retention as a top challenge, signaling that maintaining workforce stability is as difficult as building it in the first place. At the same time, only a small portion of centers have reached full operational maturity, with just 8% achieving advanced levels across innovation, differentiation, and efficiency.
These trends do not suggest that the GCC model itself is flawed. They do point to a disconnect between how centers are designed and how they need to perform.
That raises a more specific question. In environments where hiring execution determines success, does the traditional BOTT model introduce more risk than flexibility?
What the BOTT Model Was Designed to Do
The BOTT model was built to simplify expansion into new markets.
Under this approach, a single partner takes responsibility for building and operating a capability center end to end. That scope often includes real estate, construction, legal setup, technology systems, finance, HR, payroll, and talent acquisition. After a defined period, the operation is transformed with modern technologies and fit to the client’s ways of working, and then transferred to the client.
For organizations entering unfamiliar geographies, this model has provided structure and speed. It reduces the internal coordination required to stand up a GCC and offers a clear path from initial setup to eventual ownership.
The appeal has been straightforward. One partner, one solution, and a defined transition point.
Where the BOTT Model Becomes Difficult to Execute
As GCCs have evolved into more strategic parts of the business, expectations have shifted beyond basic functions like call centers to customer support. They are now expected to contribute to product development, digital transformation, data strategy, and customer operations.
That shift introduces a new level of complexity.
The traditional BOTT model assumes that one partner can effectively execute across every stage of the build and scale process. In practice, that means spanning multiple disciplines with very different operating requirements. Real estate, legal, IT infrastructure, and talent acquisition each require deep specialization.
When those responsibilities are concentrated in a single provider, execution risk increases. If one component falls behind, it affects the entire program.
In most cases, that pressure is most visible in hiring.
Hiring constraints reshape the business case
GCC investment cases rely heavily on hiring assumptions.
When organizations commit to a new center, they typically model a defined ramp in headcount tied to cost efficiency, capability expansion, or both. If those roles are not filled on schedule, the expected value is delayed or reduced.
But that is not how hiring in GCCs has played out in recent years. A significant portion of GCC hiring is now driven by replacement rather than net growth, reflecting the impact of ongoing attrition and talent competition. High-demand skills, particularly in areas such as AI and cloud, continue to outpace supply, creating further friction in scaling specialized teams.
The result is a more complex operating reality.
Companies may complete the physical build of a center but continue to depend on higher-cost markets to meet demand. Instead of consolidating work into the GCC, they are effectively supporting parallel delivery models.
This is where rigidity in the operating model becomes a limiting factor.
There’s A Shift Toward More Flexible Building Strategies
To address these challenges, many organizations are moving away from a single-vendor structure and toward a more modular approach.
Rather than assigning full ownership of the build cycle to one provider, they are separating the major workstreams and aligning each with the most relevant expertise. Property, legal, IT, and talent are treated as distinct functions, each with its own set of requirements and success criteria.
This shift allows for more control over execution and reduces dependence on any single delivery partner.
It also reflects how complex enterprise programs are typically managed today. Leaders are less focused on simplifying vendor structures and more focused on managing risk and performance across critical functions.
Read: How to Hire Successfully for GCCs
Talent strategy is changing fastest
Within this broader shift, talent is receiving the most attention.
Hiring performance directly determines whether a GCC can meet its objectives. As a result, more organizations are rethinking how they approach talent acquisition within these centers.
One of the more notable changes is the introduction of multi-vendor or dual-vendor strategies within talent. Instead of relying on a single partner to fill large hiring volumes, companies are engaging multiple partners in parallel.
The objective here is to increase coverage, improve speed and reduce the likelihood that hiring delays will impact the broader program. This approach also introduces a level of accountability that can be difficult to achieve in a single-provider model.
| Traditional BOTT | Modern approach |
| One vendor across all functions | Function-by-function specialization |
| Single execution model | Multiple partners aligned to expertise |
| Fixed path to transfer to business | Flexible ownership timelines |
| Higher exposure to performance risk if one area lags | Reduced risk through diversified execution |
The Role of BOTT Moving Forward
The BOTT model is not obsolete.
In the right context, it can still provide value. Organizations entering a new market with a well-defined scope and a realistic hiring plan may benefit from the structure it offers. It can also work where speed and simplicity are more important than specialization.
But the operating environment has changed.
GCCs are now expected to perform at a higher level and contribute to core business outcomes. That places greater emphasis on execution quality across each stage of the build and scale process, particularly in talent.
For many organizations, that reality is leading to a more flexible approach.
What Matters Most in Building A GCC Today
Global capability centers remain a critical part of how companies scale talent and delivery. But the gap between planned headcount and actual execution is becoming harder to ignore.
The traditional BOTT model can work, but it concentrates too much risk in a single delivery structure. As hiring challenges persist across key markets, companies are reassessing how these centers are built and scaled. Results tend to follow when each function is aligned to proven expertise and performance is measured at the workstream level, not the vendor level.
by Patrick Glynn