The most common way an offshore engineering team gets set up is as capacity. Requirements are written at headquarters, turned into tickets, and sent over. Code comes back. It works, in the narrow sense that code arrives. It never produces a team that owns anything, and a year in, the organization wonders why the remote team does not show initiative, does not push back, and does not catch the problems a local team would have caught.
I have spent years on both sides of that arrangement, and I think the answer is that ownership is something a team is given, not something it grows on its own. It is given in specific ways, and most organizations skip all of them.
Give them a whole problem
A team cannot own a slice. If the remote team builds the screens and the home team builds the services and a third team writes the requirements, nobody owns the feature, and the remote team least of all, because they are furthest from the user and last in the chain.
So the first thing is to give the team a whole thing: a product area, a service, a customer workflow, with the front end and the back end and the requirements conversation inside the same team. It is harder to carve out than a slice. It is the only shape that produces ownership, because it is the only shape where the team can see whether what they built worked.
Give them the authority
The second thing is decision rights. If every design choice has to be approved at headquarters, the team learns to wait, and waiting across time zones costs a day each time. A team that has to ask cannot own.
I think the authority has to be explicit and written down, because the default in any organization is that decisions flow to the center. Which decisions are the team's. Which need a conversation. Which are genuinely someone else's. Once that is clear, the team can move, and the home office can stop being a bottleneck it did not know it was.
Give them the people
The third thing is direct access to whoever the work is for. Product managers, customers, the support team, the stakeholders who will complain when it is wrong. If all of that is filtered through a liaison at headquarters, the remote team is building from a description of a need rather than the need, and the description is always lossy.
This one gets resisted, usually on the grounds that stakeholders are busy or that the time zones are hard. I think it is the single highest-value change an organization can make, and the time zones are a scheduling problem, not an excuse.
What gets in the way
The obstacle is rarely the remote team. It is the home office, which has to give up control it is used to, trust decisions it did not make, and accept that a team it sees on video will sometimes do things differently. Every one of those feels like a loss to someone at headquarters. Every one of them is the price of a team that actually owns something.
There is also patience. A team that has been handed tickets for two years does not become an owner the week the arrangement changes. It takes a few cycles of making a real decision and finding out that the decision stood, and a few cycles of being wrong and not being punished for it, before the behavior changes. The organization has to hold its nerve through that.
Why it is worth it
A capacity team produces code at the rate it is fed tickets. An owning team produces outcomes, catches problems before they ship, and gets better every year because it is learning from its own results. The second kind is the reason to build a remote center in the first place. The first kind is what most organizations settle for, and then blame on distance.
Photo source: https://photos.robertstowe.com/bengaluru