Schedule a Consultation
A global payments technology company — serving regional banks and credit unions across 14 regional markets — had reached a critical inflection point. Their engineering backlog had grown to 18 months. Their customer success team was stretched across product support, implementation, and renewals. And their home-market hiring costs had increased 34% over three years, with technical roles averaging $185,000 in fully-loaded annual cost.
The leadership team had considered global capability expansion before but held off due to concerns about quality, management complexity, and the operational overhead of standing up an India entity. They didn't have internal expertise in Indian employment law, real estate leasing, or payroll infrastructure. And they weren't in a position to hire that expertise — they needed engineering capacity, not another operational department.
The question wasn't whether global capability expansion made economic sense. At their scale, it clearly did. The question was whether they could get to operational effectiveness without a three-year build runway that their backlog couldn't absorb.
After evaluating three approaches — independent GCC setup, traditional outsourcing, and the Build-Operate-Transfer model — the company selected BOT for a straightforward reason: it transferred the operational risk during the build phase without sacrificing long-term ownership.
Traditional outsourcing would have meant paying market rates to a vendor's team indefinitely, with knowledge accumulating on the vendor's side rather than theirs. Independent setup would have required 9–12 months before they saw a productive team, plus significant management bandwidth from client leadership during a period where that bandwidth was already scarce. The BOT model offered a third path: Exolios would build the entity, source the team, and manage operations — while the company drove functional priorities from day one and retained a clear path to full ownership at the 24-month mark.
The engagement began with a location selection analysis. The company's primary technical requirements were senior engineers in payments infrastructure and API development — a profile well-represented in Hyderabad's talent market, with a secondary cluster in Pune. After evaluating time zone overlap requirements (they needed 4+ hours of client workday overlap), Hyderabad was selected as the primary location.
Entity setup — Private Limited Company registration, PAN/TAN registration, and Shops & Establishment Act filing — was completed in 31 days. Office space in a technology park in HITEC City was identified, fitted, and equipped by day 58. The build phase had two parallel tracks running simultaneously: operational infrastructure and talent acquisition.
Talent acquisition was the most critical element of the build phase. The first 15 positions — 10 senior engineers, 3 QA leads, and 2 DevOps engineers — required rigorous matching against a technical bar the company's core engineering leadership set directly. Exolios ran AI-powered matching across a candidate pool of 2,400 profiles, producing a shortlist of 87. The company's CTO and two senior engineers conducted technical interviews. 13 offers were made. 13 were accepted. The first cohort began work in a shared temporary space on day 44, with the permanent office ready on day 58.
By day 90, the team had grown to 22 engineers and was operating on the company's development environment, participating in sprint planning, and producing meaningful output. The full 40-person team was complete by month 6 of the operate phase.
The operate phase introduced two disciplines that proved decisive for long-term success: embedded management and systematic knowledge transfer.
The company assigned a global engineering director to spend the first three months of the operate phase in Hyderabad. This was not required by the BOT agreement — it was a decision the CTO made after seeing the quality of the initial cohort and wanting to accelerate the cultural integration. That decision paid off. The teams that had direct management presence in India during the operate phase consistently report higher long-term retention and stronger cultural alignment than those that attempted remote-only management.
Knowledge transfer was handled systematically. Every operational process — payroll cycles, performance review cadences, vendor management for IT and facilities, HR escalation paths — was documented by Exolios and reviewed quarterly with the company's India operations lead (a hire they made at month 8 to begin preparing for the transfer phase).
By month 12, the team was operating at roughly 80% of core team productivity on equivalent tasks. By month 18 — when transfer planning began in earnest — that figure was above 90%.
The transfer executed in 90 days, on schedule. Employment contracts were novated to the company's Indian subsidiary. Vendor contracts for facilities and IT infrastructure transferred directly. The Exolios India operations manager transitioned to direct employment with the company. Three months after transfer close, the company was operating its Hyderabad center as a fully owned subsidiary — 42 people at that point — with zero operational dependencies on Exolios beyond a 6-month advisory retainer for compliance questions.
Total setup cost under the BOT model: $1.2M, inclusive of entity formation, office fit-out, and Exolios management fees for the operate phase. Annual operating cost for the 40-person team at transfer: $2.8M fully loaded. The equivalent home-market hiring cost for 40 senior technical roles: approximately $8.4M annually.
The payback period on the setup investment against the annual cost differential was 8 weeks. The backlog that stood at 18 months when the engagement began was cleared within 14 months of the first cohort's start date.
The company's leadership attributes the outcome to three decisions they made correctly before signing the engagement: choosing a BOT partner with a completed transfer track record (they spoke with two previous Exolios clients who had transferred), investing in core-team management presence during the operate phase, and defining transfer eligibility metrics in the contract rather than leaving transfer timing to mutual agreement.
The third point deserves emphasis. Their contract specified that transfer eligibility required: team size above 35, 12-month retention above 90%, productivity benchmark (story points per sprint per engineer) within 15% of core team baseline, and a completed operations documentation package. All four metrics were achieved by month 20. The transfer executed on month 24, precisely as designed.
