Stop expanding your brownfield GCC; reset it before you scale, expand, and innovate

This HFS Point of View is for enterprise CIOs and CFOs deciding whether to reset an existing global capability center before scaling, expanding, or innovating within it.

Enterprise CIOs and CFOs often consider greenfield global capability centers (GCCs) when the enterprise wants to relocate both business operations and innovation to navigate business challenges. The important question is whether the GCC you already operate is ready for what comes next. Your current GCC may have real scale, deep process knowledge, solid credibility, and people who understand the enterprise better than any new center could. However, its charter, talent model, governance, data access, and metrics still often reflect an outdated goal of low-cost delivery.

This viewpoint builds on earlier HFS research about new GCC economics and Services-as-Software™. It argued that these centers need trust, authority, clearer KPIs, and reusable software-led capacity to deliver real value. So before you open another center, add a function, or push more work into the system, ask whether your GCC has evolved to address the next challenge.

Real reinvention starts in brownfield activities, which account for 52% of the GCC work

The next GCC opportunity lies within the centers that enterprises already operate. Our  GCC Services Horizons research shows that brownfield engagements account for 52% of GCC-provider activity compared with 43% for greenfield and 5% for center of excellence (CoE)-led models. Furthermore, 62% of engagements now focus on AI, covering AI CoEs, AI analytics, agentic AI, AI automation, and AI-led innovation (see Exhibit 1). In other words, most investments are directed toward transforming existing GCCs rather than building new ones.

Exhibit 1: Brownfield dominates GCC activity, while the mandate shifts toward AI-centric transformation

Source: HFS Research, June 2026

Size can disguise a GCC that is no longer fit for purpose

Large GCCs look mature because they have already established governance routines, delivery dashboards, escalation paths, and functional scale. These are real signs of operational discipline, but they don’t prove that these centers are ready for a mandate around product ownership, decision support, Services-as-Software, resilience, and innovation. Many have already realized that the programs in place are eating up resources and delaying innovation and execution. For example, Wells Fargo, Novartis, and JPMC are shrinking their GCCs and reducing the operational cost, focusing on innovation and AI-driven value outcomes.

The gap between their maturity and readiness stems from six challenges: setting the right charter, running complex operating models, finding and keeping niche talent, integrating culturally and organizationally, moving from cost center to value hub, and measuring business outcomes. When the mandate is unclear, investment scatters, expectations diverge, and the center never becomes a strategic asset.

The brownfield trap is evident through everyday signals. The center continues to grow, yet the business views it as merely a delivery arm. Automation is implemented, but productivity does not show in enterprise metrics. Data teams exist, but the decision rights remain with headquarters. Leaders speak of innovation, yet the talent mix leans heavily toward execution. The center manages numerous dashboards, but few indicate what changed for customers, products, risk, or revenue. This requires a reset from an execution hub to the enterprise innovation hub.

Resetting the GCC before will add more scope

Brownfield transformation starts with discipline: enterprises should not keep shifting more work to a center whose role has not been renewed. A reset is not a rebranding exercise. It forces leaders to decide what the GCC should stop doing, what it should own, and where it should be funded differently (see Exhibit 2).

Exhibit 2: The GCC reset requires shuffling the operating model and talent to create value

Source: HFS Research, June 2026

A center focused on inherited work will continue protecting it until the enterprise provides a clearer mandate to reset.

Friction within the operating model is the true reset trigger

Greenfield decisions are typically made to optimize talent, cost, footprint strategy, or market entry. A brownfield reset is prompted by friction in the operating model, indicating that a center has outgrown its original mandate (see Exhibit 3).

Exhibit 3: The reset changes the workflows, data, decision intelligence, and ownership

Source: HFS Research, 2026

These signals often get dismissed as growing pains when they are typically design issues. If ignored, they add weight to the center each year, increasing work, stakeholders, governance, and costs, while the enterprise waits for an impact the model was never designed to deliver.

A brownfield reset should start with three executive conversations

First, the enterprise should decide the outcomes the GCC should deliver over the next 12 to 24 months. Second, the GCC and headquarters should agree on which work to simplify, productize, retain, or move. Third, leadership should identify what authority the GCC needs to accomplish the new mandate.

What follows is straightforward portfolio management: protect the work that deserves it, productize the work that can be repeated, retire any work that no longer warrants scarce talent, empower the GCC where results are expected, and fund the center based on the value it is meant to generate.

The GCC reset is yielding results on enterprise savings and owning digital products

HFS GCC case studies show that brownfield resets are already evident in enterprise GCCs restructured around clearer mandates, such as digital product ownership, operational performance, engineering productivity, and workflow automation while being leaner and focused. Here are a few examples:

1. A global food and beverage company turned its delivery model into a centralized digital capability spanning functions and regions. It shipped more than 50 digital solutions in 12–16 week cycles, cut costs by over 30%, and added 2%–5% revenue growth, proving that a mature GCC can become a platform for repeatable digital capability rather than just a site for efficient delivery.
2. A US-based remittance company moved toward automated operations, saving 40% on costs. Similarly, a global home appliances maker generated over $100 million through GCC-led transformation and other resets, with the bulk of the savings coming from redesigning processes rather than moving more work to the center.
3. An underutilized digital GCC grew its workforce from 50 to 250 engineers, automated 50% of its infrastructure, and saved 25% on costs, a common path where an enterprise already has a center but needs a stronger operating model, more automation, and better talent to move from small-scale capability to a strategic platform.

The Bottom Line: The smartest move is to redefine what you already own, not build from scratch.

A brownfield center has already established scale, people, and industry knowledge that a new GCC would take years to develop. By rethinking its charter, operations, hiring, and values, it can drive real innovation. Simply adding more tasks to the existing mandate would lead to higher costs without addressing the core issues. A GCC designed for outdated goals won’t improve with growth; it just becomes more cumbersome and vulnerable to consolidation, offshoring, or outsourcing during cost reviews.