A global capability centre is a dedicated offshore operations centre that a firm builds and runs as an extension of its own business. Rather than buying a service from a vendor, the firm owns the capability: its own team, its own processes and its own standards, delivered from an offshore location under a structured governance framework. The model is sometimes called a captive centre, because the capacity belongs to the firm rather than being shared across many clients.

For Australian professional services firms, a global capability centre in India offers the scale andefficiency of offshoring while keeping the control, identity and institutional knowledge of an in house operation.

Under an employer of record arrangement, the provider legally employs your offshore staff and manages human resources, payroll, statutory compliance and infrastructure in the offshore location. You direct the day to day work as if they were your own team, but the legal employment relationship and the local obligations sit with the provider.

This removes the complexity of employing people overseas, which is significant. Setting up an entity, meeting local employment law, running compliant payroll and providing infrastructure are real barriers, and an employer of record dissolves them while leaving you in operational control of the output. It suits firms that want their own named people offshore but do not want to become an overseas employer.

Dedicated resourcing gives you a hand picked offshore team working exclusively for your firm, on your systems, following agreed standard operating procedures and quality measures. The provider handles recruitment, management, oversight and delivery. Your involvement is lighter on administration and focused on standards and outcomes rather than direct staff management.

It suits firms that want a managed team and predictable delivery without taking on the day to day management load. You set the standard and review the output, and the provider runs the team to meet it.

The clearest way to see the difference is to line them up against the things that matter most when you are choosing.

Legal employer: the provider in both models, which removes overseas employment risk.

Day to day direction: more hands on under employer of record, more managed under dedicated resourcing.

Management load on your firm: higher under employer of record, lower under dedicated resourcing.

Control over the individuals: tighter under employer of record, delivery focused under dedicated resourcing.

Best for: firms wanting their own people offshore versus firms wanting a managed outcome.

The decision usually comes down to two questions. How hands on do you want to be, and how much internal management capacity do you have. If you want to direct named individuals daily and you have the bandwidth to manage them, employer of record fits. If you would rather set thestandard and receive reliable delivery, dedicated resourcing fits.

Whichever model you choose, the governance layer matters most. Clear processes, defined quality measures and Australian led oversight are what make either arrangement reliable. The model decides who manages the people. Governance decides whether the work is any good.

These models are not a permanent commitment. Many firms start with one resource under dedicated resourcing to prove the concept, shift to an employer of record arrangement as they want more direct control, and eventually build a full global capability centre once scale justifies it. The right model today does not have to be the right model forever.

Who is the legal employer in each model?

Which model gives me more control?

Which is less work for my firm to manage?

Can we switch models later?