For much of the past two decades, conversations with global enterprises were primarily about scale and cost. Today, the same enterprises are asking a different set of questions - not about how many roles can be moved, but about which critical capabilities can be built, owned, and evolved from a GCC over the next decade.
This change was evident at the recent NASSCOM GCC Summit, where Cognizant hosted a closed-door roundtable bringing together leaders from financial services, healthcare, technology, airlines, insurance, and hospitality. Across industries and maturity levels, one theme was consistent: GCCs are no longer just delivery engines. They are being trusted with decision rights, accountability, and outcomes that sit at the heart of the enterprise. This shift from cost arbitrage to capability sovereignty marks a defining moment for India's GCC ecosystem.
There's growing urgency behind this shift and it's not just theoretical. Cognizant's refreshed New Work, New World research finds that the AI disruption we had penciled in for 2032 has already arrived. The pace is staggering. Exposure to AI is climbing roughly 9% a year, whereas our original analysis assumed 2%. At that speed, no operating model stays fixed for long, and the GCCs that adjust quickest are the ones that will matter.
In this environment, GCCs that adapt quickly will not just stay relevant; they will shape how enterprises compete. Three takeaways from the GCC Summit speak directly to the capability sovereignty trend and AI's influence over it:
- Seniority matter less than contribution
Two people with the same title can now contribute very differently, depending on how well they work with the systems around them. That unsettles an industry that has traditionally priced and promoted talent based on years of experience.
It also leaves a hard question open, one debated in our roundtable: If repeatable work is the first thing AI takes, and repeatable work is how people once learned the craft, where will the next generation of expertise come from? The strongest answer was to turn the problem around. By giving junior employees tools to help clear the routine layer faster, they can reinvest the time they save in learning the business. In other words, don't remove the apprentice, just speed up the apprenticeship.
- Effort is not an effective form of measurement.
This is where many centers may face challenges, often without recognizing it early enough. Traditional metrics such as tickets closed, transactions processed, or cost per seat measure activity, not value - and they become increasingly inadequate when one individual is orchestrating multiple AI agents. The discipline required is straightforward but essential: establish a clear cost baseline before deployment, define two or three business-value metrics at the outset, and consistently measure against them. Without this rigor, future funding discussions can become difficult to sustain.
- Operating model change is a two-way street.
The traditional hub-and-spoke model is giving way to federated, outcome-based models, with GCC teams increasingly contributing to strategy, product, risk, and revenue - not just execution. In our work with Citizens Bank, the Hyderabad centre runs on one team, one mission, one backlog and one set of outcomes, with the same rules applying in the bank's Rhode Island headquarters as in Hyderabad. In this case, the adjustment was not technical capability, but cultural, where the headquarters had a willingness to learn a new ways of working: different hours, new rhythms, and the confidence to cede some ownership.
Trust is the real differentiator
Across all three themes, one factor stood out: trust. A GCC that is positioned purely as an execution arm will always be judged on cost - and cost advantages erode over time. Centers that earn a lasting place are the ones the enterprise trusts to own results, navigate change, and move fastest when technology shifts again. That trust is not created through reorganization charts or tooling choices. It is built gradually through shared governance, consistent accountability, and the confidence to handle complexity. As India's GCC ecosystem matures, enterprises will ask fewer questions about technology itself. Those answers will evolve regardless. The harder questions will be human: How much are organizations willing to rethink how work is structured? How far will headquarters trust their centers with decisions that truly matter? How India's GCCs answer will determine whether they remain places that receive work or become places where decisions are made. There is little doubt which future is worth building.
By Sailaja Josyula, SVP and Global Head, GCC Service Line, Cognizant
GCC AI
Disclaimer
This content is a community contribution. The views and data expressed are solely those of the author and do not reflect the official position or endorsement of nasscom.
That the contents of third-party articles/blogs published here on the website, and the interpretation of all information in the article/blogs such as data, maps, numbers, opinions etc. displayed in the article/blogs and views or the opinions expressed within the content are solely of the author's; and do not reflect the opinions and beliefs of NASSCOM or its affiliates in any manner. NASSCOM does not take any liability w.r.t. content in any manner and will not be liable in any manner whatsoever for any kind of liability arising out of any act, error or omission. The contents of third-party article/blogs published, are provided solely as convenience; and the presence of these articles/blogs should not, under any circumstances, be considered as an endorsement of the contents by NASSCOM in any manner; and if you chose to access these articles/blogs , you do so at your own risk.