India Capability-Transfer Sponsor Adviser

The mandate

The board repeatedly asks why engineering domains described as transferred to India still wait for London approvals, retain duplicate source roles and lose experienced India leaders. Sponsors are rewarded for delivery continuity but not for surrendering authority, while transfer dashboards count knowledge sessions and filled positions. The standing question is how headquarters sponsorship should create an independent capability rather than permanent dependency.

The working rhythm reserves two days each month for a sponsor-accountability session and direct examination of one transfer domain. Four technology-committee appearances and four source-country or India leadership reviews sit inside the retainer. When a release-of-authority or successor-readiness issue could delay a gate, the chair receives a written challenge within forty-eight hours; other evidence is examined at the following monthly session.

The term is ten months and ends after the board reviews two completed domain transfers. In month nine, the chair may propose a separate portfolio-assurance mandate, but renewal requires a new resolution and conflict declaration; no automatic continuation applies. Unused time expires and cannot be carried into later migration waves.

The adviser holds no line authority and carries no executive, transfer-approval, risk, hiring, remuneration or product responsibility. Management owns delivery and people decisions, and directors govern policy. The adviser may challenge sponsors, test evidence and shape incentives, but cannot direct source or India staff, approve exits or represent either location in management forums.

Up to three unrelated appointments may continue. Work for a competing insurer, GCC service provider, executive-search firm, location adviser, systems integrator or investor with an affected supplier creates a conflict requiring disclosure and possible recusal. Placement fees, migration-volume payments and savings-linked compensation are prohibited.

Why the board wants this voice

The board hears progress through sponsors who own both the transition narrative and the overseas teams expected to release control. India leaders can describe dependency but lack equivalent influence in headquarters committees. An independent executive who has closed source roles and transferred authority can help directors distinguish prudent oversight from institutional resistance.

What you will own

• Press sponsors to name the decisions, privileges, relationships and knowledge that must move for each domain.
• Test transfer evidence through India-led roadmap, architecture, release, incident, risk and supplier scenarios.
• Challenge duplicate source roles, indefinite shadow support and escalations that bypass the declared India owner.
• Examine sponsor and leader incentives for continuity, capability independence, successor depth and timely source exit.
• Shape board measures spanning exercised authority, service outcomes, control quality, retention and unresolved dependency.
• Probe how risk assurance remains effective without becoming an excuse to retain management decisions abroad.
• Frame a closing board view on sponsor performance, domain readiness, interventions and transfers that should pause.

Candidate qualifications

• Sponsored or governed complex India engineering transfers from a source-country headquarters in a highly regulated multinational enterprise.
• Closed duplicate source roles after the receiving team demonstrated operating authority and control evidence.
• Reworked sponsor incentives that rewarded activity or continuity while discouraging genuine capability independence.
• Protected independent risk challenge while moving product, architecture, release and incident decisions into India.
• Addressed India leadership attrition caused by nominal titles without meaningful global decision rights.
• Advised boards independently of GCC vendors, recruiters and source leaders whose interests were under review.

Non-negotiables

• Can attend four London committee meetings and complete the four UK and India sponsor reviews within ten months.
• Will disclose insurance, GCC provider, search, advisory, integrator and investment relationships.
• Accepts that transfer, people, risk and product authority remains with management and the board.
• Brings evidence of source-role exit after India ownership transfer; offshore governance advice alone is insufficient.

1. 49 words maximum. Describe a source sponsor behaviour that preserved dependency while appearing to reduce transition risk.
2. 49 words maximum. Which current insurer, GCC provider, recruiter or adviser relationship could require your recusal?
3. 49 words maximum. Confirm the London cadence and name one exercised decision that proves India ownership is real.