Rate how clearly ownership of each workflow step is assigned when agents, vendor staff, and customer staff work in the same process

The mean rating was 3.7 and the median 4.0 (n = 808 respondents). Ratings of 3 or below, the distressed range, made up 48.02% of the answers. The rating was associated with all four study measures. Higher ratings came with less cancellation (r = −0.65, 95% CI −0.73 to −0.55, p < 0.001, n = 150 engagements), higher customer satisfaction among active engagements (r = 0.61, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.72, p < 0.001, n = 94 engagements), a higher engagement indicator mean computed without the indicator (r = 0.85, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.89, p < 0.001, n = 150 engagements) and lower intent to leave (r = −0.69, cluster bootstrap 95% CI −0.74 to −0.62, p < 0.001 with standard errors clustered by engagement, n = 758 respondents). After Holm correction, ratings differed by process family (Welch F 4.05, Holm p = 0.037, omega squared 0.056), engagement status and lifecycle stage (Welch F 46.79, Holm p < 0.001, omega squared 0.418) and respondent role (Welch F 15.07, Holm p < 0.001, omega squared 0.026).

Written responses addressing the indicator numbered 82, from 81 respondents on 58 engagements. Of these, 70 were negative and 45 carried the strongest negative score of −10. Nearly half described a step in the shared process that no one owned, so that when the agent or a person got it wrong, each firm said it belonged to the other and the work sat. The remedy they proposed was a name against each step. Engagements with a negative written response were canceled more often, and respondents whose written responses were more negative reported higher intent to leave.

Ratings of 3 or below, the distressed range, accounted for 388 of the 808 answers (48.02%). The engagement mean fell in the distressed range in 64 of 150 engagements.

The primary responses numbered 68, all written in answer to C156, “Add any comments on the joint management of this engagement that the ratings in this section do not capture.” The remaining 14 responses, 17.07% of the total, were secondary and came from 7 other questions. That secondary share ranked 38th from the highest among the 71 Part 2 indicators with 30 or more written responses, against a median of 18.92%. Respondents who wrote both a primary and a secondary response numbered 1. Negative responses made up 83.82% of primary responses (57 of 68) and 92.86% of secondary responses (13 of 14).

Among the 68 responses to C156, the comment field on joint management, 40 stated that a step in the shared process had no owner, or that each firm said the step belonged to the other. The steps were specific: a break override, a misrouted ticket, a claim the agent handed back half finished, the rollback of a week of duplicate loads. So were the waits: four days to find whose approval a claimant letter needed, eleven days for a duplicate payment finding, eleven weeks for a single attribution rule change while the agent kept producing results on the old basis. Nine described the consequence for the respondent: left to decide what was not theirs to decide, or blamed as the last hands on the work. Five described review that had become a formality, such as forty findings cleared in an hour or a model signed in four minutes without anyone opening the workings. Seven asked for the same remedy, one name against each step.

Against these, eight positive responses to C156 said ownership of each step was clear or had been written down at the start, and that the document held. In the survey section on alterations, four responses said the workaround was not reported, was rewritten quietly, or that the respondent could not say what reached management.

Of the 82 responses, 70 (85.37%, 95% CI 77.11% to 92.68%) were negative and 45 (54.88%) carried the strongest negative score of −10. Positive responses numbered 12 (14.63%), and no response was neutral. The mean written score was −6.3 (95% CI −7.4 to −5.1, n = 82 responses), and the median was −10.0.

Of the 82 responses, 80 came from respondents who also rated the indicator. Among them, the written score rose with the rating (Spearman rho 0.46, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.64, p < 0.001, n = 80 responses). The written responses corroborated the rating. Of the 68 negative responses with a rating, 50 (73.53%) came from respondents whose rating was in the distressed range.

Respondents who wrote about the indicator and gave a rating numbered 79, with a mean rating of 2.9. The 729 respondents who rated the indicator without writing about it had a mean of 3.8. The difference, −0.9 (95% CI −1.3 to −0.4), excluded zero. Ratings in the distressed range made up 67.09% of the ratings from respondents who wrote (53 of 79) and 45.95% of the ratings from respondents who did not (335 of 729).

The respondents who wrote came disproportionately from the distressed end of the scale. The written evidence therefore gives more weight to the respondents who rated the indicator worst.

Every figure in the segment tables is at respondent level. Segments with fewer than 30 respondents carry no interval. Segments with fewer than 10 report counts only.

Segment families recorded at engagement level were tested on engagement means. Respondent role and vendor type were tested on respondents. Where an expected count fell below 5, the test of the distressed share used Fisher's exact test for a two-by-two table, marked exact, or a Monte Carlo test, marked simulated. After Holm correction, ratings differed by process family (Welch F 4.05, Holm p = 0.037, omega squared 0.056). Engagements in the process family “Technology engineering and operations” rated highest (mean 4.2, n = 195 respondents) and engagements in the process family “Trade, settlement and reconciliation” lowest (mean 2.7, n = 76 respondents). Ratings also differed by engagement status and lifecycle stage (Welch F 46.79, Holm p < 0.001, omega squared 0.418). Active engagements in Build-Out rated highest (mean 4.8, n = 165 respondents) and canceled engagements lowest (mean 2.2, n = 305 respondents). Ratings also differed by respondent role (Welch F 15.07, Holm p < 0.001, omega squared 0.026). Portfolio directors rated highest (mean 5.3, n = 31 respondents) and individual contributors lowest (mean 3.5, n = 626 respondents). Outsourcing model, institution type, class of work and vendor type showed no difference.

Written sentiment differed by engagement status and lifecycle stage across the 58 engagements with a written response (Kruskal-Wallis H 14.64, df 3, p = 0.002). Of the groups with 10 or more responses, responses from canceled engagements were the most negative (mean −8.2, 41 responses) and responses from active engagements in Transition/Cut-Over the least negative (mean −2.9, 14 responses). Responses from active engagements in Production (8) are reported as counts only.

No test across respondent roles was run, because fewer than two roles had 30 or more written responses. Individual contributors wrote 61, engagement managers wrote 18 and portfolio directors wrote 3 responses.

Cancellation rate is the share of engagements canceled by the study date, measured at engagement level (150 engagements, 56 canceled). Canceled engagements were rated after cancellation. The association is therefore a descriptive contrast and not a forecast of cancellation.

Across the study set, higher ratings came with less cancellation (r = −0.65, 95% CI −0.73 to −0.55, Holm p < 0.001, n = 150 engagements). The association held after Holm correction in fourteen of the 20 segment levels tested.

Customer satisfaction is the percentage recorded against each engagement. The primary estimate uses the 94 active engagements. A descriptive contrast uses all 150 engagements.

Across the active engagements, higher ratings came with higher customer satisfaction (r = 0.61, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.72, Holm p < 0.001, n = 94 engagements). The association held after Holm correction in thirteen of the 16 segment levels tested.

The engagement indicator mean is the mean of an engagement's ratings across the rated indicators, measured at engagement level (150 engagements). The indicator is one of the rated indicators. Each comparison therefore uses the mean recomputed without it.

Higher ratings came with a higher engagement indicator mean (r = 0.85, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.89, Holm p < 0.001, n = 150 engagements). The association held after Holm correction in twenty-four of the 24 segment levels tested.

Intent to leave is the answer to C019, “How likely are you to leave your current job in the next 12 months?”, rated 1 to 10. It is measured at respondent level on up to 798 respondents, with the engagement-level form reported alongside.

Respondents who gave higher ratings reported lower intent to leave (r = −0.69, 95% CI −0.72 to −0.65, Holm p < 0.001, n = 758 respondents). The association held after Holm correction in thirty-six of the 37 segment levels tested.

Two comparisons set the engagements with at least one negative response against all other engagements. Of the 96 other engagements, 92 had no written response addressing the indicator. These two comparisons therefore do not isolate written sentiment. Of the 54 engagements with a negative response, 29 (53.70%) were canceled, against 27 of the 96 other engagements (28.13%). The difference reached significance (Fisher exact p = 0.003). Customer satisfaction among active engagements did not differ between the two groups (mean 64.40% on 25 engagements against 63.99% on 69, Welch t 0.14, p = 0.890).

Two correlations test written sentiment directly. Across the 58 engagements with a written response, a more negative engagement mean written score came with cancellation (point-biserial r −0.46, p < 0.001). Across 78 respondents, a more negative respondent mean written score came with higher intent to leave (Spearman rho −0.40, p < 0.001). Of the four comparisons, three reached significance at 0.05.

The four associations were compared in pairs on their engagement-level forms, each oriented so that a higher value is the better outcome, across the 150 engagements with all four measures. After Holm correction, five of the six pairs differed. The association with the engagement indicator mean was the strongest and the association with customer satisfaction the weakest. The associations with customer satisfaction and intent to leave did not differ (Holm p = 0.402).

Answers clustered within engagements (ICC 0.68). Clustering reduced the 808 respondent answers to the equivalent of about 203 independent answers. Respondent-level intervals therefore used the cluster bootstrap. Respondent-level tests of intent to leave used standard errors that allow for clustering by engagement.

No association was equivalent to zero. Each of the four differed from zero. The detection floor shown is the study floor at 150 engagements. Intent to leave was tested on its effective sample size.

Each change was computed before rounding and may differ by 0.01 from the difference between the two printed values.

All 22 checks held. A check holds when its test falls on the same side of 0.05 as the primary test. Where the primary test falls below 0.05, the check must also keep the sign of the primary correlation. The thin-base check removes the engagements in any level of outsourcing model or process family with fewer than 30 engagements. Institution type is not used for that check, because every one of its levels has fewer than 30 engagements.

Each of the four measures was computed from data the indicator does not contain. Each result is therefore a finding and not an arithmetic consequence. The indicator is one of the rated indicators, and the engagement indicator mean was recomputed without it. The correction changed r by 0.00, from 0.86 to 0.85.

Each deviation was computed before rounding and may differ by 0.01 from the difference between the two printed values.

The comparison covered 150 engagements. The indicator followed the study's typical pattern on all four measures, and no deviation held after Holm correction.

Among the 71 Part 2 indicators with 30 or more written responses, the indicator's share of negative responses, 85.37%, ranked 26th from the highest, against a median of 80.82%. Its mean written score, −6.3, ranked 10th from the most negative, against a median of −4.7.

The indicator most often present in the same responses was C136, “Rate how effectively the customer and vendor jointly manage this engagement now that agents perform part of the work.”, in 15 of the 82 responses (18.29%). C147, “Rate how well human review points are placed across the two firms at the moments where agent errors would matter most.” (13 responses), C205, “I have altered client processes” (11 responses), C036, “What stage is the engagement in?” (9 responses) and C144, “Rate how well the joint change control process keeps pace with the speed of agent behavior changes.” (8 responses) followed.

The most frequent theme was “Respondent proposes a remedy”, in 12 responses (14.63%). The second was “Raised it, nothing came back”, in 11 responses.

Nearly half of all ratings of the assignment of ownership for each workflow step fell in the distressed range (388 of 808 answers, 48.02%). The rating was associated with all four study measures, and every association held under each of the 22 robustness checks. Canceled engagements rated far below the three active stages (mean 2.2, n = 305 respondents).

The written responses locate the failure at the handoffs. Where an agent, the vendor's staff and the institution's staff each performed part of a process, a step that belonged to no one became the point where work waited and errors went unclaimed. The written sentiment was itself associated with cancellation and with intent to leave.

The evidence is the reported experience of the vendor's delivery teams, collected in a single cross-section. The associations reported here are not causal.

Tests by respondent role and by vendor type treated respondents as independent. The section on clustering reports how far clustering within engagements reduced the information in respondent-level figures.

Customer management executives gave 1 answers, a base of anecdote strength.

Shares of written sentiment are shares of responses and not of the study set of respondents. The written score takes five fixed values, so its mean and median are coarse. Responses clustered within engagements (82 responses on 58 engagements). Intervals for written sentiment therefore used a bootstrap by engagement.