Pricing Models Utilized by Global Capability Centers (GCCs) in India and Emerging Trends

 

Pricing Models Utilized by Global Capability Centers (GCCs) in India and Emerging Trends

Global Capability Centers (GCCs) in India have become strategic hubs for multinational enterprises, delivering a broad spectrum of services ranging from IT and analytics to engineering and healthcare. As GCCs evolve from low-cost delivery centers to innovation partners, their pricing models must also adapt to balance cost efficiency, flexibility, and value creation. This blog delves into the prevalent pricing models in use by GCCs in India and explores the emerging trends shaping pricing strategies for the future.

Common Pricing Models Used by GCCs in India

1. Time and Material (T&M) Model

• Description: Clients pay for the actual hours worked and resources utilized.
• Usage: Favored for projects with evolving requirements or where scope is not fully defined, such as software development, R&D, or consulting.
• Pros: Flexible and scalable; aligns cost with effort.
• Cons: Less cost predictability; may deter efficiency incentives.

2. Fixed Price Model

• Description: GCCs quote a fixed price for a well-defined scope of work and deliverables.
• Usage: Applied to mature, repeatable processes like application maintenance, IT support, or back-office processing.
• Pros: Predictable costs for clients; incentivizes operational efficiency.
• Cons: Risk of scope creep; requires stringent project management.

3. Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) Model

• Description: GCC initially builds and operates a capability and later transfers it to the parent company.
• Usage: Common for establishing new functions such as analytics centers or digital transformation units.
• Pros: Shares investment risks; ensures knowledge transfer.
• Cons: Complexity in contracts and transition; requires high governance maturity.

4. Per Transaction/Unit Based Pricing

• Description: Pricing based on number of transactions or units processed.
• Usage: Typically for volume-driven processes like claims processing, billing, or data entry.
• Pros: Aligns with volume fluctuations; straightforward scaling.
• Cons: May reduce incentives for automation; service quality can vary.

5. Outcome/Value-Based Pricing

• Description: Payment linked to achievement of specific business outcomes or value addition.
• Usage: Growing in strategic engagements like digital transformation, AI adoption, and innovation projects.
• Pros: Encourages partnership mindset; aligns incentives.
• Cons: Requires robust measurement frameworks; can be complex to implement.

6. Hybrid Pricing Models

• Description: Combination of the above models tailored to client and project needs.
• Usage: Increasingly popular to balance risk and reward across diverse services.
• Pros: Flexible and balanced approach.
• Cons: Complex contract structuring and billing.

Forward-Looking Pricing Trends for GCCs in India

1. Shift Toward Value and Outcome-Based Models

Clients are increasingly demanding GCCs move beyond traditional labor arbitrage to deliver measurable business outcomes. Pricing linked to KPIs like cost savings, innovation milestones, or user satisfaction is gaining momentum.

2. Increased Adoption of Automation and AI Influencing Pricing

Automation and AI reduce manual effort and cost but require revised pricing reflecting reduced labor input and increased technology investment. GCCs are experimenting with licensing or subscription pricing for AI-enabled platforms.

3. More Flexible and Agile Pricing Approaches

Complex, dynamic projects require adaptive pricing that can accommodate changing scope, new technology adoption, and evolving talent requirements. Flexible billing cycles and revision clauses are becoming standard.

4. Greater Transparency and Collaborative Contracting

To deepen trust and foster long-term partnerships, GCCs and clients are co-creating pricing models with shared dashboards, real-time cost tracking, and joint governance mechanisms.

5. Sustainability and ESG Considerations Affecting Costing

As enterprises place higher importance on environmental and social governance, GCC pricing increasingly factors costs for sustainable operations, fair labor practices, and inclusive workforce development.

6. Emergence of Ecosystem-Based Pricing

With GCCs partnering extensively with startups, technology providers, and academia, pricing models are evolving to cover multi-party service delivery and revenue or cost-sharing arrangements.

Conclusion

The pricing landscape for GCCs in India is at a transformative inflection point. While traditional time-tested models like fixed price and T&M remain foundational, the future belongs to value-conscious, flexible, and tech-enabled pricing approaches that reflect the GCC’s role as a strategic partner. GCC leaders and enterprise clients must collaborate to develop transparent, agile pricing frameworks that balance cost control with incentives for innovation and business impact.

Adopting and evolving these pricing models will be vital for GCCs to sustain growth, optimize value delivery, and strengthen client relationships in the years ahead.

#GlobalCapabilityCenters #GCCIndia #PricingModels #CostEfficiency #ValueBasedPricing #FixedPrice #TimeAndMaterial #BuildOperateTransfer #TalentArbitrage #DigitalTransformation #Innovation #BusinessStrategy #EnterpriseGrowth #TransferPricing #GCCTrends #IndiaGCC #OperationalExcellence #FlexiblePricing #FutureOfWork #TechEnablement#PuneetSethi

 

A Comparative Analysis of GCC Maturity Models by Leading Firms

A Comparative Analysis of GCC Maturity Models by Leading Firms

Global Capability Centers (GCCs) have evolved beyond offshore cost centers to strategic innovation and value-creation hubs. To guide this evolution, several leading consulting and advisory firms have developed maturity models that define stages of GCC development, capabilities, and leadership priorities. Understanding these models helps GCC leaders benchmark progress, identify gaps, and create roadmaps for transformation.

1. ANSR GCC Maturity Model

ANSR positions GCCs as engines of business, technology, and workforce transformation. Their model is heavily focused on innovation enablement and sustainable scaling through their unique "GCC-as-a-Service" approach.

• Stages: Foundation → Growth & Scale → Innovation & Transformation.
• Key Focus: Integration of AI-driven capabilities, agility in scaling workforce, and global collaboration.
• Unique Aspect: Pay-as-you-grow model reduces upfront CAPEX and drives fast time-to-value.
• Governance and workforce planning are emphasized alongside technology enablement.

2. Zinnov GCC Maturity Framework

Zinnov categorizes GCC maturity into four evolving waves:

• Outpost (basic offshore presence)
• Satellite (expanded service portfolio with process integration)
• Portfolio Hub (broader mandate including cross-functional capabilities)
• Transformation Hub (leading innovation, product development, and intellectual property creation).

The model stresses governance, succession planning, and value metrics as pillars essential for transformation.

• Assessment Dimensions: Strategic intent, organization design, operating model, workforce skills, innovation, and technology adoption.
• Outside-in benchmarking against peer trends and market dynamics supports decision-making.

3. EY GCC Maturity Model

EY frames GCC maturity in the context of business impact:

• Focus Areas: Operational excellence, risk and compliance maturity, digital transformation, and innovation.
• Stages: Emerging → Established → Advanced → Strategic Partner.
• Emphasizes alignment with enterprise business goals and embedding ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) frameworks.
• Leadership capabilities, talent localization, and enterprise collaboration are core enablers of maturity.

4. KPMG GCC Maturity Model

KPMG's model identifies four tiers based on capability and integration:

• Level 1: Foundation—Focus on standardized service delivery and operational efficiency.
• Level 2: Consolidation—Cross-functional process integration and shared services.
• Level 3: Optimization—Incorporates analytics, automation, agile teams for proactive problem solving.
• Level 4: Innovation Hub—Centers serve as co-creators of intellectual property and strategic contributors.

The model is data-driven, combining quantitative KPIs with qualitative stakeholder insights. It encourages continuous maturity assessment across five dimensions: process efficiency, digital enablement, talent sophistication, ecosystem connectivity, and value creation.

5. NASSCOM GCC Maturity Model

NASSCOM’s maturity model reflects the dynamic growth of GCCs, capturing dimensions vital for next-generation centers:

• Stages: Ideation → Own → Deliver → Scale.
• Focuses on strategic alignment with HQ, governance and empowerment, service portfolio expansion, depth of capability, digital maturity, workforce preparedness, risk and compliance, and measuring value and cost.
• Highlights the importance of collaboration, innovation, agility, and continuous improvement.
• Recognizes that maturity is evolving with technology advances and changing organizational priorities.
• Encourages holistic assessment considering leadership sponsorship, sector tenure, digital nativeness, and enterprise vision.

6. Everest Group GCC Maturity Model

Everest Group’s model focuses on the evolution of GCCs from transactional service providers to strategic value partners:

• Phases: Cost Center → Service Provider → Enabler → Strategic Partner.
• Highlights the importance of maturity in governance, innovation capacity, stakeholder management, and talent management.
• Emphasizes metrics tied to business impact, innovation outputs, and ecosystem integration.
• Focuses on practical levers such as shared services maturity, digital adoption, and risk and compliance frameworks for sustained growth.
• Advocates for continuous performance measurement with a strong linkage to enterprise strategy.

Side-by-Side Summary Table

Firm	Maturity Stages	Key Focus & Differentiators	Assessment Dimensions	Unique Features
ANSR	Foundation → Growth & Scale → Innovation	AI-driven capabilities; pay-as-you-grow	Workforce planning, governance, tech enablement	GCC-as-a-Service model
Zinnov	Outpost → Satellite → Portfolio Hub → Transformation Hub	Governance, value metrics, succession planning	Strategic intent, org design, innovation	Outside-in benchmarking
EY	Emerging → Established → Advanced → Strategic Partner	Business impact, ESG integration	Operations, risk, talent localization	ESG and enterprise alignment
KPMG	Foundation → Consolidation → Optimization → Innovation Hub	Analytics, agile teams, IP co-creation	Process efficiency, digital enablement, value	Quantitative + qualitative maturity scoring
NASSCOM	Ideation → Own → Deliver → Scale	Strategic alignment, governance, digital maturity	Service portfolio, workforce, risk & compliance	Emphasizes evolving maturity with tech & culture
Everest	Cost Center → Service Provider → Enabler → Strategic Partner	Business impact, innovation, governance	Shared services maturity, digital adoption, risk	Strong enterprise strategy integration

---

Conclusion

Each model emphasizes a staged evolution from operational efficiency to strategic innovation. ANSR and NASSCOM highlight agile, technology- and governance-driven growth models, while Zinnov and KPMG focus more on benchmarking, governance, and innovation pathways. EY uniquely integrates ESG considerations as a maturity pillar, and Everest Group grounds maturity in business impact and enterprise strategy linkage.

For GCC leaders, integrating lessons from these models provides a balanced framework—investing in technology and talent while establishing robust governance and consistently measuring value. This comprehensive approach ensures GCCs become indispensable strategic assets rather than just cost centers.

This comparative framework equips GCC leaders to evaluate their maturity effectively, prioritize transformation imperatives, and accelerate sustainable growth.

#GlobalCapabilityCenters #GCCMaturity #ANSR #Zinnov #EY #KPMG #NASSCOM #EverestGroup #GCCLeadership #DigitalTransformation #Innovation #TalentManagement #Governance #BusinessStrategy #OperationalExcellence #EnterpriseGrowth #TechnologyAdoption #RiskManagement #SustainableGrowth #StrategicPartnerships#PuneetSethi

 

Why GCCs Fail: Lessons from the Trenches

Why GCCs Fail: Lessons from the Trenches

Global Capability Centers (GCCs) have become strategic anchors for multinationals—enabling innovation, operational scale, and knowledge leverage. However, the harsh reality is that many GCCs stall or degenerate into mere back-office vendors despite promising starts.​

1. Lack of Strategic Vision and Alignment

A GCC needs a clear purpose, aligned with broader enterprise ambitions.​

• Launching a GCC only to drive headcount or reduce costs is a tactical approach that quickly hits diminishing returns.

• When centers lack evolution plans—from cost arbitrage to value co-creation—they risk becoming irrelevant as business needs change.

• Misaligned objectives between GCC leadership and enterprise HQ leads to ambiguous mandates and stalled growth.​

2. Weak Governance and Leadership

A clear governance framework and strong local leadership are non-negotiable.​

• Poor governance leads to indecisive execution, slow escalations, and loss of trust with global stakeholders.​

• Over-reliance on instructions from HQ undermines autonomy and credibility.

• Succession planning and leadership pipeline development are often neglected, creating vulnerability during transitions.​

3. Over-Optimizing for Cost, Under-Investing in Capability

• Centers that obsess over cost reduction underinvest in talent, innovation, and process maturity.​

• Without continuous capability development, GCCs become low-value service arms rather than innovation hubs.

• Poor investment in employee learning leads to skill gaps, attrition, and stagnation.​

4. Undefined Stakeholder Relationships & Local Integration

Business unit resistance, unclear roles, and lack of integration often sabotage GCC acceptance.​

• Fear of job loss or loss of decision-making control leads to friction with host business units.

• GCCs that fail to localize culture, communication, and governance frameworks see more stakeholder dissatisfaction.​

• Clear Service Level Agreements (SLAs) and co-developed delivery charters are a must.

5. Legacy Thinking and Resistance to Change

Many GCCs struggle to move from legacy processes and reactive mindsets to proactive models.​

• Rigid workflows delay tech adoption and process improvements.

• Change management failures—fueled by insecurity or lack of buy-in—result in operational drag and higher attrition.​

• Excessive reliance on automation or AI without proper governance can create data security and customer satisfaction issues.​

6. Poor Risk, Compliance, and Technology Management

• Data privacy risks and unaddressed compliance gaps can derail credibility and invite regulatory scrutiny.​

• Lack of agility in managing tech upgrades, cyber threats, or regulatory shifts exposes GCCs to external shocks.

7. Midway Stagnation: The “Growth Stall” Phase

A critical phase for most GCCs comes after initial setup—growth slows, priorities shift, and operational complexity spikes.​

• Failure to upgrade capabilities, refresh mandates, and communicate new value lead to mid-life stagnation.

• Ongoing capability reviews, real-time performance dashboards, and proactive stakeholder engagement are vital for re-energizing the center.​

Mitigation Strategies for GCC Leaders

• Establish bold strategic charters with phased expansion plans—not just operational mandates.​

• Invest early in leadership development, capability building, and governance frameworks.​

• Create transparent, collaborative relationships with business units—codify roles, SLAs, and joint accountability.​

• Embrace change management as a core leadership function—upskill, communicate, and empower teams.​

• Proactively manage tech, compliance, and regulatory risks through dedicated teams and external audits.​

• Continuously review the GCC roadmap, KPIs, and business impact with global and local stakeholders to spot and fix problems before they escalate.​

Final Thoughts

Successful GCCs do not just deliver cost savings—they transform into innovation engines, strategic partners, and trusted enablers for the enterprise. Avoiding failure means embracing bold vision, investing in leadership and talent, and relentlessly pursuing business value alignment at every phase of the journey.

#GlobalCapabilityCenters #GCCLeadership #GCCFail #BusinessStrategy #OperationalExcellence #TalentManagement #InnovationLeadership #DigitalTransformation #RiskManagement #StakeholderEngagement #ChangeManagement #Compliance #Leadership #FutureOfWork #BusinessResilience #OrganizationalGrowth #PuneetSethi

Unlocking GCC Performance: Metrics for the Modern Era

Unlocking GCC Performance: Metrics for the Modern Era

Modern-day Global Capability Centers (GCCs) have evolved from simple cost-saving hubs into dynamic engines powering enterprise innovation, digital transformation, and strategic growth. To truly assess their impact and chart the path forward, leaders must adopt a broader, richer set of performance metrics—going well beyond the traditional measures of cost arbitrage or headcount.​

Why Rethink GCC Metrics?

• Today’s GCCs drive innovation, build digital capabilities, and own global mandates.

• Classic metrics like cost savings no longer capture the multi-dimensional value GCCs offer.

• A balanced, future-ready metrics framework enhances credibility with enterprise HQ, boosts leadership autonomy, and positions the GCC as an innovation powerhouse.​

Core Categories for Performance Measurement

1. Lead and Lag Indicators

• Lead Indicators: Predictive metrics that gauge forward-looking contributions (e.g., speed of technology deployment, number of digital innovations reaching production, time-to-market acceleration).

• Lag Indicators: Reflect achievements and performance over the past period (e.g., operational cost reduction, SLA compliance, customer satisfaction scores)​

2. Operational Excellence

• Process Efficiency: Track process cycle times, automation rate, and first-time resolution rates.

• SLA Adherence & Error Rates: Measure compliance with Service Level Agreements and monitor process defects or rework cycles.

• Capacity Utilization & Resource Optimization: Assess how effectively the GCC leverages its workforce and technology stacks.​

3. Digital & Innovation KPIs

• Automation & AI Integration: Percentage of processes automated, number of AI/ML projects implemented, and time taken to scale pilots.

• Digital Adoption Rate: How quickly new tools and systems are embedded in day-to-day operations.

• Innovation Velocity: Speed at which concepts are translated into deployable solutions; number of patents or reusable assets created.​

4. Financial Contribution

• Cost per Unit of Output: Cost quality and bench-marked productivity metrics instead of just absolute cost savings.

• Total Cost of Ownership & ROI: End-to-end cost visibility, including infrastructure, talent, and change management.

• Value Delivered: Cost savings reinvested into innovation or additional value captured through new business mandates.​

5. Talent & Capability Development

• Upskilling & Leadership Development: Proportion of employees engaged in continuous learning, certifications, or lateral movement.

• Attrition and Retention: Retaining critical talent and reducing unwanted churn, with special focus on emerging tech capabilities.

• Internal Mobility & Role Localization: Demonstrating career pathing and leadership localization success.​

6. Experience: Stakeholders and Employees

• Net Promoter Score (NPS) & CSAT: Internal customer and employee satisfaction assessed through surveys and feedback loops.

• Stakeholder Engagement: Direct input from enterprise partners about GCC’s strategic value and trustworthiness.

• Employee Net Promoter Score (eNPS): Indicates overall engagement, belonging, and advocacy among staff.​

7. Risk, Compliance, and ESG

• Audit Scores & Regulatory Readiness: Speed of compliance issue resolution, audit pass rates, and resilience to external shocks.

• ESG Metrics: Environmental, social, and governance factors are increasingly tracked as boardroom priorities for global centers.​

Modern GCC Metrics: Summary Table

Category	Example Metric	Modern Benchmark
Lead Indicators	Time to deploy new tech, innovation pipeline	2-3x faster than past cycles​
Operational Efficiency	SLA Adherence, process automation rate	95%+, 50-70% automation​
Digital & Innovation	AI/ML integration, digital adoption rate	Measured by pilot-to-production velocity​
Financial	TCO, cost per FTE, value delivered	4x-6x ROI in strategic areas​
Talent & Capability	Employee upskilling, critical role retention	>75% in learning, attrition <10%​
Stakeholder/Employee Exp.	NPS, eNPS, CSAT	NPS >60, eNPS >50​
ESG & Compliance	Audit scores, ESG index	ESG reporting and 100% compliance​

Crafting a Future-Ready Dashboard

• Use a balanced scorecard approach, integrating both business outcome metrics and operational KPIs.

• Track dynamic, real-time KPIs that align with strategic ambitions—capability maturity, digital transformation progress, and innovation rate.​

• Involve business stakeholders in co-creating metric definitions and success thresholds to ensure buy-in and ongoing relevance.​

Conclusion

High-performing, future-ready GCCs are laser-focused on value creation, innovation, and agility, all measurable through a 360-degree metrics framework. Leaders who master these metrics are well-positioned to transform their GCCs from cost centers into global strategic assets.​

#GlobalCapabilityCenters #GCCLeadership #PerformanceMetrics #Innovation #DigitalTransformation #OperationalExcellence #TalentDevelopment #ESG #BusinessImpact #Strategy #FutureOfWork #Technology #Leadership #Management #PuneetSethi

"From Back Office to Brain Trust: How AI Will Turn India’s GCCs into Global Orchestrators of Enterprise Strategy”

"From Back Office to Brain Trust: How AI Will Turn India’s GCCs into Global Orchestrators of Enterprise Strategy”

Over the past decade, India’s Global Capability Centers (GCCs) have evolved from cost-saving outposts to strategic innovation hubs. Today, with AI as the accelerant, they stand at the cusp of a transformation that could redefine global operating models.

But here’s the untapped insight:
AI won’t just make GCCs more efficient—it will recode their very purpose. Instead of being delivery engines, GCCs will become decision orchestration hubs, shaping enterprise strategy in real time.

Why this matters:

• AI + Scale Advantage: India hosts 1,580+ GCCs employing 1.6M professionals, projected to cross 2,000 by 2027. With 70% already investing in Generative AI, these centers are building the world’s largest AI-ready workforce.
• Operating Model Shift: Traditional GCCs optimized for cost and process. The next wave will optimize for contextual intelligence—using AI to simulate scenarios, predict risks, and co-create products, not just execute tasks.
• Talent Reimagined: Roles will blur. A product manager will co-create MVPs with GenAI; a finance analyst will validate AI-generated forecasts. GCCs will need “Synthesists”—professionals who combine domain expertise with AI orchestration skills.
• Strategic Autonomy: AI-driven GCCs will no longer wait for HQ directives. They’ll own outcomes, drive IP creation, and influence global P&L decisions. Think of them as mini strategy boards embedded in delivery ecosystems.

The Big Question:

Are enterprises ready to trust GCCs with strategic co-ownership? This shift demands bold governance models, AI ethics frameworks, and talent strategies that go beyond upskilling to role redesign.

Call to Action:

If you lead a GCC or partner with one, ask yourself:
Is your center still a cost arbitrage play—or is it gearing up to become an AI-powered brain trust?
The winners will be those who embed AI deeply, invest in leadership, and reimagine their North Star beyond delivery.

#AI #GlobalCapabilityCenters #DigitalTransformation #FutureOfWork #IndiaTechLeadership #Puneet Sethi

Demystifying Global Capability Center (GCC) Models: BOT, Landlording, and Beyond

 

Demystifying Global Capability Center (GCC) Models: BOT, Landlording, and Beyond

In our fast-evolving global economy, Global Capability Centers (GCCs) play a transformative role by serving as strategic hubs for innovation, cost efficiency, and access to global talent. But choosing the right GCC operating model remains a critical decision that shapes long-term success. Consulting experts Zinnov, ANSR, and Accenture reveal the leading models—each with distinct benefits, tailored to diverse business needs. This article unpacks these models with vivid narratives and real-world examples.

Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) Model: The Bridge to Ownership

For mid-sized companies, establishing a GCC from scratch might seem daunting. That’s where the BOT model shines. Imagine ANSR as a trusted partner that builds and operates your GCC initially, taking on all startup risks. Once the center reaches maturity, it transfers full ownership back to you.

Consider a SaaS firm partnering with ANSR in Bangalore. Within 18 months, the GCC scaled to 150 employees, driving critical product development, and then smoothly transitioned to full client ownership—achieving stability without upfront headaches.

Landlording Model: Own the Roof, Outsource the Rest

Picture owning a commercial building but hiring experts to manage tenants and maintenance. The Landlording model lets enterprises own GCC infrastructure but outsource daily operations. This ensures strategic control over assets while benefiting from specialized service providers.

A multinational financial firm owns premier office space in Gurgaon but contracts facilities management externally—balancing control and convenience effectively.

Captive/Owned Model: Full Command from Day One

Some giants prefer full ownership and direct control. Accenture’s GCCs operate this way, employing thousands in India to lead with AI, cloud, and automation projects worldwide. This model fosters deep innovation and operational excellence, powering Accenture’s digital leadership.

Hybrid GCC Model: Custom Control Meets Cost Efficiency

Hybrid GCCs keep core teams in-house while outsourcing support roles like HR and IT. Zinnov helped a global pharma firm retain regulatory teams internally while outsourcing IT support—optimizing costs without compromising control.

Joint Venture (JV) & Virtual Captive Models: Partnerships & Agility

Companies facing complex regulations or talent markets sometimes share ownership in JV GCCs or use vendor-managed Virtual Captives before full ownership. An automotive leader formed a JV in India, planning gradual transition, thus balancing risk and control.

Outsourcing & Staff Augmentation: Strategic Complements

While GCCs focus on ownership and integration, outsourcing and staff augmentation remain key for flexibility. A fintech startup, for example, added blockchain experts temporarily to its GCC during product launches, showcasing agile scaling.

---

Choosing Your Ideal GCC Model

• BOT: Perfect for risk-averse mid-sized enterprises needing a smooth launch and path to ownership.

• Landlording: Suited for firms wanting asset control with outsourced operations.

• Captive: Best for organizations seeking uncompromised control and innovation focus.

• Hybrid: Balances control with cost-effective outsourcing.

• JV/Virtual Captive: Efficient in complex or emerging markets.

• Outsourcing/Staff Augmentation: Tactical approaches for flexibility.

Leading firms Zinnov, ANSR, and Accenture tailor these models to business goals—turning GCCs from cost centers into innovation engines.

#GlobalCapabilityCenter #GCC #BOTModel #BuildOperateTransfer #Landlording #CaptiveModel #HybridGCC #JointVenture #VirtualCaptive #DigitalTransformation #GCCIndia #BusinessConsulting #GlobalBusinessServices #EnterpriseStrategy #OffshoringStrategy #SharedServices #GCCLeadership #FutureOfWork #BusinessInnovation #StrategicOutsourcing #OperationalExcellence #Zinnov #ANSR #Accenture #GCCExperts #TalentStrategy #InnovationHub #GlobalTalent #BusinessTransformation #CostOptimization# Puneet Sethi