EliteRecruitments

One GCC or several? Designing a specialist function across hubs

Comparison of a centralized GCC and multiple interconnected GCC hubs, illustrating specialist function design, global workforce collaboration, and distributed operations.

One GCC or Several? When to Concentrate a Specialist Function and When to Split It

Once a firm has decided to build specialist financial services capability offshore, a second question follows that gets far less attention than the location question: should the function sit in one centre, or be split across more than one. It is an operating model decision, not a recruitment one, and getting it wrong is expensive in ways that take years to surface.

This piece is for the people making that call, the chief operating officers and capability centre leaders, rather than for recruiters. The trade is between the coherence of a single concentrated function and the resilience and reach of a distributed one, and the right answer depends on the function, not on a general preference.

What is the case for concentrating a specialist function in one hub?

Coherence and depth. A single location keeps a specialist team together, which matters most for functions where judgement is shared and built through proximity, such as actuarial, capital modelling and model governance. Concentration deepens the local ecosystem, simplifies leadership and governance, and makes the hard to hire senior layer easier to attract because the centre of gravity is clear.

Concentration wins where coherence matters most. A specialist function whose work depends on shared judgement, peer review and close collaboration, actuarial valuation, capital modelling, model governance, tends to be stronger in one place. The team learns from each other, the standards stay consistent, and the senior leadership has a single coherent function to run. Concentration also deepens the local ecosystem over time, and it makes the scarce senior hires easier to attract, because talented specialists want to join a recognised centre of gravity rather than a scattered set of small teams.

What is the case for splitting a function across hubs?

Resilience, reach and talent access. Splitting reduces concentration risk, extends time zone and regulatory coverage, and lets a firm tap more than one talent pool, for example deep actuarial depth in India alongside an internationally regulated team in GIFT City or the Gulf. It suits functions that can be partitioned cleanly and firms that need coverage across markets.

Distribution wins where resilience and reach matter more than tight coherence. Splitting a function reduces the risk of concentrating everything in one location, extends coverage across time zones and regulatory environments, and lets a firm draw on more than one talent pool at once. For financial services specifically, that can mean deep actuarial and analytics work in India alongside an internationally regulated cross border team in GIFT City or a Gulf hub. It works best for functions that can be partitioned cleanly into pieces that do not need constant shared judgement, and for organisations that genuinely need presence across markets rather than just lower cost.

How do you decide which functions to concentrate and which to split?

Partition by how much shared judgement the work needs. Tightly coupled, judgement heavy work, core actuarial, capital, model governance, belongs together. Loosely coupled, process defined work, certain analytics, reporting, monitoring, can distribute. Map each part of the function on that axis, concentrate the coupled core, and distribute the separable pieces where talent, cost or coverage favour it.

The useful test is how tightly coupled the work is. Tightly coupled work, where outputs depend on constant shared judgement and review, loses quality when split, so the core actuarial, capital and model governance work usually belongs in one place. Loosely coupled work, where tasks are well defined and can be handed off cleanly, such as some analytics production, regulatory reporting or monitoring, can be distributed without losing much. The strongest designs concentrate the coupled core in the location with the deepest talent, then distribute the separable pieces where cost, coverage or a particular talent pool favours it. The mistake is to split the coupled core for cost reasons and then spend years fighting the coordination overhead.

What goes wrong with multi hub specialist functions?

Coordination cost and a hollow middle in each location. Splitting a judgement heavy function too finely creates teams too small to hold senior talent or sustain standards, so each site leans on remote leadership and the quality slips. The fix is to split along clean lines, give each location a coherent whole sub function rather than fragments, and ensure each has real leadership on the ground.

The common failure is splitting a coupled function too finely, leaving each location with a team too small to attract senior talent, sustain its own standards, or operate without constant remote supervision. The result is high coordination cost, inconsistent quality, and a leadership gap in every location at once. The way to avoid it is to split along clean lines so each location owns a coherent whole sub function rather than fragments of one, and to make sure each site has genuine leadership on the ground rather than being run remotely from headquarters. A distributed model only works if each node is whole enough to stand on its own.

For choosing the specific locations once you have decided the model, read our piece on choosing a GCC location for specialist work.

For the leadership each location needs, read our analysis of the GCC leadership readiness gap.

EliteRecruitments advises on how to structure and staff specialist financial services functions across one or several corridors, and on the leadership each location needs to stand on its own. If you are designing a single or multi hub model, we are happy to think it through with you. 

Frequently asked questions(FAQs)

1. Should a specialist function sit in one GCC or several?

It depends on how tightly coupled the work is. Judgement heavy work that depends on shared review, such as core actuarial, capital and model governance, is stronger concentrated in one hub. Loosely coupled, well defined work can be distributed for resilience, reach and talent access.

Coherence and depth. A single location keeps the team together, keeps standards consistent, simplifies leadership and governance, and makes scarce senior hires easier to attract because the centre of gravity is clear. It suits judgement heavy functions like actuarial and model governance.

Resilience, time zone and regulatory coverage, and access to more than one talent pool, for example deep actuarial depth in India alongside an internationally regulated team in GIFT City or the Gulf. It suits functions that can be partitioned cleanly and firms needing genuine presence across markets.

Splitting a judgement heavy function too finely, leaving each location too small to hold senior talent or sustain standards, which drives coordination cost and quality problems. The fix is to split along clean lines so each location owns a coherent sub function with real leadership on the ground.

Talk to us about your hiring

Get in touch

More reading

Related intelligence

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *