Nearshoring News Update

For years, tech companies expanding offshore that were looking for the advisory of a local expert, favored the Build‑Operate‑Transfer (BOT) model to launch Global Capability Centers (GCCs) or Shared Services Centers. The specialized vendor built the operation from scratch—dedicated infrastructure, a new legal entity, admin staff hiring, policies—then stabilized it and transferred it to the client after a set term. Because the vendor assumes execution risk, BOT pricing typically includes a margin on top of the total operation (a % uplift). It’s more expensive than the Do-It-Yourself approach, but the premium is often justified: it reduces unknown‑country risk and limits budget overruns with a turnkey, governed path to transfer.

For North American B2B tech companies, expanding into Mexico offers both cost savings and access to top talent—but the approach matters. A DIY setup can be slow, risky, and expensive, while the Subsidiary-as-a-Service (SUBaaS) model delivers speed, compliance, and significant savings. By paying only for what they use, companies can reduce operational costs by up to 70%, avoid legal and compliance pitfalls, and launch in weeks instead of months. SUBaaS makes nearshore operations scalable, capex-friendly, and investor-approved—helping businesses stay lean and competitive in a volatile global economy.

Global expansion is no longer limited to large enterprises—but the terminology used to describe new foreign operations has become confusing. Are companies launching a Global Capability Center, a CoE, a Micro Capability Center, or simply a regional office? The distinction between frameworks like Subsidiary-as-a-Service (SUBaaS) and functions like GCC or GBS is often overlooked, slowing clarity and execution. As nearshore strategies in Mexico grow, Micro Capability Centers—lean, agile teams under SUBaaS—are emerging as the preferred model. Getting the terminology right ensures alignment, realistic expectations, and scalable growth.