Evidence-led capability designPublic claims are labelled as verified, illustrative or pending validation.Open the evidence room →
ClikinTech GCC Lab

Build your GCC before you build your GCC.

Explore capability, size, location, workplace, workforce and operating-model choices through a structured preliminary planning flow.

Before you use the simulator

Know what the GCC Lab does — and where it stops.

Version 1.2 · Updated 7 October 2026 · Responsive interface · No live market feeds · Methodology remains visible below the result.

What it can do

Structure a preliminary comparison.

The simulator explores centre size, workplace, workforce and operating-model choices. Location is optional research context and never changes the model assessment. User-selected priorities identify which evidence to validate first for every shortlisted location.

What it cannot do

Replace current due diligence.

It does not provide a final site-selection decision, verified market valuation, legal advice, tax advice, incentive eligibility or guaranteed cost and talent availability. Final decisions require current role-level, location-level, financial, regulatory and operational due diligence.

01

Define the mandate

Select capability and centre scale before choosing a city.

02

Choose context

Choose a location to research, then select workplace, workforce and operating model.

03

Set validation priorities

Allocate priority points; they affect what must be researched first, not a city’s factual score.

04

Interpret the band

High, Moderate or Conditional describes operating-model alignment only. It does not rate a city or location.

Input definitions and interpretation bands
Capability

The primary functional mandate planned for the centre.

Centre size

A planning headcount range, not a hiring forecast.

Location

An optional research input. Locations are listed alphabetically, with no default selection, ranking or tier-based scoring.

Priority points

The order in which evidence should be validated; they do not represent empirical market weights.

High preliminary alignment

The selected operating combination has fewer obvious design conflicts, subject to evidence.

Moderate preliminary alignment

The combination is plausible but needs focused validation and trade-off analysis.

Conditional preliminary alignment

One or more choices require redesign, staged scale or stronger evidence before proceeding.

Interactive preliminary planner

Explore. Simulate. Compare.

The public simulator is an initial planning aid. It does not replace current market data, legal, tax, incentive, real-estate or role-level analysis.

Define the GCC you are considering.

Complete seven clear steps, then adjust the priorities. The result updates with operating-model alignment and validation actions. Location suitability is assessed separately using the same criteria for every location.

1
Select capability.
2
Select GCC size.
3
Choose any location to research.
4
Select workplace.
5
Choose workforce model.
6
Choose operating model.
7
Allocate 100 priority points.
Preliminary and illustrative. Final recommendations require validated, current inputs.
01
02
03
Listed alphabetically, with no preferred location. Choose any city or enter another location.
04
05
06
Compare definitions on the five GCC models section.
07
Allocate 100 points across priorities100 / 100
Planmodel alignment
Illustrative operating-model viewExplore your operating-model choices

Choose your planning inputs to explore operating-model alignment. Apply the same evidence criteria to every location.

No location selected. Choose or enter a location to research; none is preferred.

Why this result?

No location or tier scoring
  • The selected scale and operating model are compatible as a planning combination.
  • Location evidence has not yet been validated.

Recommended validation actions

  1. Validate role-level talent availability.
  2. Compare total cost across shortlisted cities.
  3. Check applicable state policies and incentives.
  4. Get current workspace evidence.
  5. Define leadership and first-wave workforce plan.
Review this plan with Clikin Tech
Methodology, factor rationale and uncertainty
Version 1.2Updated 7 October 2026Evidence window: current at engagement start
FactorInput / sourceNormalisationWeightUncertaintyRationale

City names and locations never enter the fit calculation. Size, workplace, workforce and operating-model choices determine the illustrative band; priority points determine the order of research. The same evidence criteria apply to every location.

The band reflects only operating-model choices. Every location is assessed against the same evidence criteria; no city, region or tier changes this band. Priority points guide the order of research.

How to use the output

The output guides discovery — it is not an investment decision.

Use the output to frame assumptions and comparison questions before commissioning detailed feasibility, location, legal, tax, workplace and workforce analysis.

01

Validate role-level talent

Test skill depth, seniority, compensation, notice periods, competition and leadership availability.

02

Build a total-cost view

Include compensation, benefits, workplace, technology, compliance, leadership, attrition and operating overhead.

03

Test continuity and risk

Review infrastructure, business continuity, regulatory obligations, data needs and operational dependencies.

04

Design the operating model

Clarify entity, ownership, governance, workforce, workplace, partner responsibilities and transfer path.

Turn the preliminary result into a GCC Blueprint.

A structured engagement can validate capability, location, cost, leadership, workforce, governance and mobilisation priorities.