Innovation, especially in its early stages, doesn’t require scale. It needs intention.
For more than a decade, the story of Global Capability Centres (GCCs) has centred around their size, like reaching certain numbers of employees and building big campuses, as well as expanding their ability to deliver services. Big GCCs have definitely helped businesses become more resilient, save money, and keep operations running smoothly around the world. Their role in achieving high-quality results is widely acknowledged.
However, a quieter and less noticeable shift is occurring in early-stage innovation.
In India and other emerging hubs of innovation, Nano GCCs, which usually consist of 20 to 100 highly focused professionals, are showing an unusual ability to come up with ideas quickly, experiment effectively, and produce outcomes that are closely aligned with business needs. Their advantage comes, not from having better resources, but from a lack of excessive structure, that often hinders early innovation.
Early innovation stages do not emphasize implementation; rather, it requires an individual to have courage to challenge assumptions regarding the rationale of certain products created, assumptions developed regarding customer behaviour and obstacles created by certain regulations.
In contrast, large centres are set up for certainty. Their governance structures, multi-layered approvals, and specialized roles are aimed at predictability and repeatability. While these are essential for scaling, they can also limit the freedom needed for exploring uncertain ideas. Nano GCCs operate closer to the enterprise’s decision-making core, where the gap between a hypothesis and a decision is filled with discussions, not committees. This closeness provides essential support for ideas during their most vulnerable moments.
Contrary to common belief, innovation does not come from headcount; it comes from density. In larger centres, innovation is often set up through labs, centres of excellence, or dedicated teams. Ironically, this formal approach can isolate innovation from the business context it aims to impact.
Mr. Alouk Kumar CEO & MD of Inductus group quoted “Innovation does not emerge from scale alone; it comes from intention, courage, and proximity to decision-making. Nano GCCs succeed in early-stage innovation not because they are small, but because they operate where questions are still open, assumptions are challenged, and leadership is directly engaged. In a world chasing size, it is often these quiet, focused teams that create the most meaningful breakthroughs”
Nano GCCs take a different approach. Roles overlap in a natural way. Engineers grasp the customer context, analysts take part in product discussions, and leaders stay actively involved in problem-solving. This high level of cognitive involvement allows for quick sharing of different viewpoints. Innovation becomes more incidental and ongoing rather than a planned event.
A key strength of Nano GCCs is how they are structured around problem ownership. Early-stage innovation starts with unanswered questions rather than solutions. Large centres usually get clearly defined problem statements after strategic filtering. Nano GCCs, especially when they are just starting, are often given open-ended tasks to explore feasibility, test markets, develop prototypes, or question existing assumptions.
This places Nano GCCs as extensions of the enterprise that think critically rather than just as delivery arms. This distinction is crucial. Embracing ambiguity is much more conducive to innovation than executing with certainty.
Failure is an inevitable part of innovation, and it’s also less costly in Nano GCCs financially, organizationally, and culturally. Large centres face reputational and operational inertia, making failure expensive even when it is intellectually supported. Nano GCCs reduce these costs. Experiments can be conducted discreetly, lessons can be learned honestly, and ideas can be discarded without the fear of political fallout. In early innovation cycles, quickly moving away from a failed idea is just as valuable as scaling a successful one.
Another difference lies in leadership focus. In large GCCs, leadership attention is divided among operations, compliance, workforce management, and stakeholder reporting. Innovation competes for limited focus among many priorities. In contrast, Nano GCCs reverse this trend. Leaders are closer to the actual work, the teams involved, and the ideas being tested. Decisions are rarely escalations; they are more like conversations. This direct leadership involvement significantly improves the quality and speed of innovation outcomes.
More companies are now using a portfolio approach to innovation, which means they’re breaking things down into smaller parts rather than relying on one big plan. Nano GCCs are becoming important in finding and testing new ideas. Once an idea works, it can move to bigger parts of the company that handle scaling and production. The real question now is not if Nano GCCs are important, but if they are being created with this purpose in mind.
Innovation doesn’t come from being big; it comes from being brave. It means asking tough questions, trying new ideas, and working even when you don’t have all the answers. Nano GCCs do well in early innovation not because they are small, but because they are right where the challenges, decisions, and goals are.
Right now, real innovation is hard to find and it is valuable. It might be the quietest places that are making the biggest difference.
