Your strategic founding team in India
Founded by Harvard alumni with over 100 years of combined operating experience, to build capability centres that create value for the companies we partner with rather than only reducing their cost.
Scale was never the point. It was the entry fee
Traditional capability centres were large because the fixed cost of an entity, a compliance function and a facilities team demanded it. That constraint has largely gone.
For two decades the rule of thumb was that a capability centre in India needed several hundred people before the arithmetic worked. That rule was correct, and it was correct for a specific reason: entity formation, statutory compliance, facilities and infrastructure carried a fixed cost that could only be justified by spreading it across a large headcount.
Almost all of that has changed. Company formation and compliance are now routine and fast. Cloud infrastructure removed the data centre and most of the internal IT function. Distributed working practices removed the argument that a team had to be large enough to be self sufficient in one building. What is left is a much lower entry threshold, and a question most companies have not revisited since they last looked at it.
Hexominds exists to answer that question for US companies. Not a smaller version of a traditional GCC, and not a staffing arrangement wearing a capability centre label. A founding team in India, sized to the mandate you actually have, live within a quarter, run by a partner rather than sold by a vendor.
The difference between a partner and a vendor
A vendor sells you capacity and is measured on delivering it. A partner is accountable for whether the capability actually works, which includes telling you when the thing you have asked for is the wrong thing.
In practice that means we will say no. If the systems you want owned are genuinely temporary, if the real constraint is prioritisation rather than capacity, or if nobody senior will sponsor the centre through its first difficult quarter, we would rather establish that in a first conversation than eighteen months in.
- We scope the decision boundary before the first hire, not after
- We hire the pod lead first, so every later hire is chosen by someone who will work with them
- We put a date on the transfer of a real system, because ramps without dates do not end
- We report escalation rate, because it is the metric that is hardest to game
- We tell you when the model does not fit your situation
Every layer, one partner, zero friction
A capability centre fails on the boundaries between suppliers as often as it fails on the engineering. We hold all of them.
Legal & compliance
Entity formation, statutory filings, audit and the annual cycle. Compliant from day one rather than compliant after the first assessment.
HR & workforce
Hiring, onboarding, payroll, benefits and the retention work that determines whether the team you built is the team you still have next year.
Infrastructure & IT
Workspace, devices, access, environments and security tooling, provisioned under your policies rather than ours.
Agentic AI innovation
Applied AI teams where evaluation design and production operation matter more than model selection.
SaaS execution teams
Dedicated product engineering pods that own named surfaces end to end.
Autonomous innovation hub
Exploratory mandates with their own governance, funding and adoption route, kept separate from delivery.
The people you would actually work with
Small firms are their people. These are the ones you would deal with, and what each of them is accountable for.
Kishore, Co-Founder and Head of Thought Leadership
Works with executive teams and boards on the strategic case for building capability in India, and on the governance that determines whether an offshore mandate produces owned IP or expensive activity.
Suresh Babu, Head of Delivery and Operations
Accountable for how teams are actually built and run: the legal and compliance layer, the hiring funnel, infrastructure readiness, and the ramp model that takes a team from first commit to owning a roadmap area.
Mohan Raj, Head of Marketing and Go-To-Market
Responsible for how the Nano GCC model is positioned to US companies evaluating capability centres, and for the value generation frameworks behind how engagements are measured.
Rishi, Engagement Manager, AI and Talent Solutions
Works with clients on team composition for applied AI mandates, translating a capability requirement into the specific roles and seniority it actually needs.
The commitments we hold ourselves to
These are design decisions rather than values statements, which means you can check whether we kept them.
Scope the decision boundary
What the team will be able to decide without asking, written down before a single job description exists. This determines the seniority we hire and whether the arrangement can work at all.
The pod lead, always
Hired first and involved in every subsequent interview. A team whose lead arrives last is a group of individuals selected by someone who will not work with them.
Entity, compliance, infrastructure
None of this is sequenced behind hiring. Running it in parallel is what turns an eighteen month timeline into a three to four month one.
A transfer with a date
A named system changes hands on a named day, with the onshore approval gate removed rather than relabelled. This is the point of the whole exercise.
Report what is hard to game
Escalation rate, systems owned end to end, onshore hours consumed. Metrics that only improve if the centre genuinely improves.
Twelve cities, one operating model
Bengaluru, Hyderabad, Chennai and Visakhapatnam, plus eight further cities where we hire and operate.
The location question matters less for a small senior team than it did for a large centre, and it matters in a different way. The primary hubs offer the deepest senior pools and the most competition for them. Less saturated cities frequently offer better retention at equivalent seniority, which for a team whose value rests on accumulated context is often the more important variable.
We hire where the right people are rather than defaulting to a single location, and we will make the case for a particular city based on the seniority you need rather than on where it is most convenient for us to operate.
On the numbers we publish. Three to four months to operational, ten to two hundred as the optimal team size, and compliant from day one are the commitments we make and hold ourselves to. Where we cite anything about the wider market on this site, we link to the source rather than asserting it.
Frequently asked questions
What does Hexominds actually do?
We build and operate Nano and Micro GCCs in India for US companies: an owned legal entity, a small senior engineering team inside it, and the legal, compliance, HR and infrastructure layers underneath. The engineers are employees of your entity, not ours.
How is this different from an outsourcing firm?
The engineers work for your entity rather than ours, the systems and IP are yours outright, and the context accumulates with your company. An outsourcing firm sells capacity and retains the capability; the whole point of this model is the reverse.
What size engagements do you take?
Typically ten to two hundred people. Below roughly eight to twelve an employer of record arrangement usually makes more sense until the scope grows, and we will say so rather than selling an entity you do not need yet.
How quickly can a team be operational?
Three to four months from decision to first productive output. Entity formation, statutory compliance, infrastructure and hiring run in parallel rather than sequentially, which is what removes most of the traditional timeline.
Do we own the IP and the code?
Yes. The engineers are employees of your Indian entity, their employment contracts assign work product to that entity, and an intercompany agreement assigns it onward to the parent. Short chain, no third party with divergent interests.
Which industries do you work in?
Primarily SaaS and technology, healthcare and health tech, fintech and financial services, retail and e-commerce, and hospitality and travel technology. The model is not industry specific; what changes is which systems go under-owned and what the control environment must look like.
What happens if we want to stop?
A small team with reasonable notice periods, no facility commitment and no capital expenditure is a genuinely bounded commitment. We model the exit cost with you before you commit, because a commitment you cannot unwind is not one you should make.
Will you tell us if this is not right for us?
Yes, and we would rather do it early. If the work is genuinely temporary, if the real constraint is prioritisation, or if no executive sponsor will protect the centre, an offshore team will scale the existing problem rather than solve it.
Related reading
Start with the systems, not the headcount
Tell us which systems are under-owned and why hiring for them has stalled. We will come back with a team shape, a seniority mix, a fully loaded cost model and a realistic date.