ChirayuGCCChirayuGCC
    All posts
    Build-Operate-Transfer
    Build-Operate-Transfer
    Strategy

    The Build Operate Transfer playbook for 2026: what changed and what still works

    BOT was the default GCC model in the 2010s, fell out of fashion in 2020, and is now back. Here is what we learned in the gap years and the structure we use now.

    TL;DR

    BOT was the default GCC model in the 2010s, fell out of fashion in 2020, and is now back. Here is what we learned in the gap years and the structure we use now.

    18 June 2026India6 min readBy ChirayuGCC Research Team
    Quick Enquiry, get a tailored GCC plan in 1 business day

    Build Operate Transfer was the default India captive model from 2008 to 2018, then collapsed as global parents realised the IT services majors had bundled hidden margins into the build phase. From 2020 to 2024 the conversation moved to direct entity. From 2025 onwards a cleaner BOT is back, this time with independent setup partners and a tighter transfer clause. Here is how we structure it now.

    Why BOT is back

    • Direct entity setup, while clean, takes 9 to 12 months and ties up CFO bandwidth that most parents do not have
    • Modern BOT contracts are now built around a hard 24 to 30 month transfer with formula-based pricing, not negotiated at the end
    • Independent setup partners (not IT services majors) charge a flat success fee, not a margin on resold headcount
    • Cloud, SaaS and remote leadership tools mean the parent can stay close to the build in real time, which was not true in 2012

    The clean BOT structure we recommend

    • Phase 1 Build (months 1 to 6): partner sets up entity in parent name, leases real estate, hires first 50 to 80 FTEs
    • Phase 2 Operate (months 7 to 24): partner runs the centre under SLA, parent embeds two leaders for shadow management
    • Phase 3 Transfer (months 24 to 30): formula based transfer at agreed multiple of operating cost, partner exits cleanly
    • Performance clauses tied to attrition, hiring TAT, SLA adherence at each phase gate
    • Right to convert to direct at any phase boundary at pre-agreed terms

    The traps to avoid

    • Open-ended Operate phase that becomes permanent because the transfer clause was never priced
    • Partner-employed talent that resigns en masse at transfer because retention bonuses were not pre-funded
    • Real estate leased in partner name with no clean assignment clause
    • IP and source code ownership ambiguity that surfaces only at transfer
    • Hidden margins layered into per-FTE pricing that the parent only sees at transfer

    When BOT is still the wrong answer

    If your function is fully regulated (BFSI middle office under direct RBI scrutiny), you want direct entity from day one. If your function is research-led and IP-sensitive (AI labs, deep tech R&D), the BOT partner sitting between you and the talent slows the work. For everything else, modern BOT with the right partner shaves 6 to 9 months off go-live and lets the parent focus on what the centre actually does.

    Planning a GCC in India?

    Share your context and we will respond within one business day with a tailored blueprint. Or call/WhatsApp us right away.

    Need a deeper conversation? Use the comprehensive enquiry form.