Rate how well the two firms jointly govern changes agents make to their own behavior between formal releases

The mean rating was 3.7 and the median 4.0 (n = 806 respondents). Ratings of 3 or below, the distressed range, made up 48.14% of the answers. The rating was associated with all four study measures. Higher ratings came with less cancellation (r = −0.62, 95% CI −0.71 to −0.51, p < 0.001, n = 150 engagements), higher customer satisfaction among active engagements (r = 0.59, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.71, p < 0.001, n = 94 engagements), a higher engagement indicator mean computed without the indicator (r = 0.83, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.88, p < 0.001, n = 150 engagements) and lower intent to leave (r = −0.67, cluster bootstrap 95% CI −0.72 to −0.60, p < 0.001 with standard errors clustered by engagement, n = 756 respondents). After Holm correction, ratings differed by engagement status and lifecycle stage (Welch F 38.61, Holm p < 0.001, omega squared 0.377) and respondent role (Welch F 8.15, Holm p = 0.004, omega squared 0.015).

Few written responses addressed the indicator: 14, all from C156, the comment field on joint management, and all but two negative. They described the same gap. Formal releases were governed, but changes the agent made to its own behaviour between releases had no owner, no joint record and no forum, and the firms learned of these changes from the output or when a pipeline failed. Written sentiment was not associated with the study measures, though the base is too small for that test to carry weight.

Ratings of 3 or below, the distressed range, accounted for 388 of the 806 answers (48.14%). The engagement mean fell in the distressed range in 62 of 150 engagements.

The primary responses numbered 14, 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.” No response from any other question addressed the indicator, so every response was primary.

Of the 14 responses, twelve stated that changes in agent behaviour between releases went unwatched or were noticed late: an assistant that changed how it sorted leave cases and left the team with two weeks of backlog, a matching rate that drifted on unmatched cash with no forum to take it, a bot that began answering a ticket type differently from the month before, comparables pulled a different way and found only by reading the output. Four of these said the formal change process or the review points were sound, and that the gap lay only between releases. One described a governance forum that met monthly, a cadence set when a change meant a release, so that by the time either firm raised a drift it had already stopped being true. In the other cases the drift was logged on one side only, or decided at the point of work and reported to both firms afterward.

The two positive responses described a change log that both firms saw on the same day, and a weekly review meeting that signed models without anyone opening the workings.

Of the 14 responses, 12 (85.71%, 95% CI 64.29% to 100.00%) were negative and 7 (50.00%) carried the strongest negative score of −10. Positive responses numbered 2 (14.29%), and no response was neutral. The mean written score was −6.1 (95% CI −8.6 to −3.2, n = 14 responses), and the median was −7.5.

Of the 14 responses, 14 came from respondents who also rated the indicator. Among them, the written score did not track the rating (Spearman rho 0.06, 95% CI −0.61 to 0.65, p = 0.850, n = 14 responses). Of the 12 negative responses with a rating, 7 (58.33%) came from respondents whose rating was in the distressed range.

Respondents who wrote about the indicator and gave a rating numbered 14, with a mean rating of 3.6. The 792 respondents who rated the indicator without writing about it had a mean of 3.7. The difference, 0.0 (95% CI −0.9 to 1.0), included zero. Ratings in the distressed range made up 57.14% of the ratings from respondents who wrote (8 of 14) and 47.98% of the ratings from respondents who did not (380 of 792).

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 engagement status and lifecycle stage (Welch F 38.61, Holm p < 0.001, omega squared 0.377). Active engagements in Build-Out rated highest (mean 4.8, n = 169 respondents) and canceled engagements lowest (mean 2.2, n = 301 respondents). Ratings also differed by respondent role (Welch F 8.15, Holm p = 0.004, omega squared 0.015). Portfolio directors rated highest (mean 5.0, n = 30 respondents) and individual contributors lowest (mean 3.5, n = 624 respondents). Outsourcing model, institution type, process family, class of work and vendor type showed no difference.

Written sentiment did not differ by engagement status and lifecycle stage across the 14 engagements with a written response (Kruskal-Wallis H 1.57, df 2, p = 0.457). Fewer than two groups held 10 or more responses, so the groups are reported as counts only: active engagements in Transition/Cut-Over (7), active engagements in Production (3) and canceled engagements (4).

No test across respondent roles was run, because fewer than two roles had 30 or more written responses. Individual contributors wrote 10, engagement managers wrote 3 and portfolio directors wrote 1 responses, reported as counts only.

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 = −0.62, 95% CI −0.71 to −0.51, Holm p < 0.001, n = 150 engagements). The association held after Holm correction in fifteen 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 = 0.59, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.71, Holm p < 0.001, n = 94 engagements). The association held after Holm correction in eight 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 = 0.83, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.88, 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 = −0.67, 95% CI −0.70 to −0.62, Holm p < 0.001, n = 756 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 138 other engagements, 136 had no written response addressing the indicator. These two comparisons therefore do not isolate written sentiment. Of the 12 engagements with a negative response, 4 (33.33%) were canceled, against 52 of the 138 other engagements (37.68%). The difference did not reach significance (Fisher exact p = 1.000). The comparison of customer satisfaction was not computed, because one of the two groups held too few active engagements.

Two correlations test written sentiment directly. Across the 14 engagements with a written response, the engagement mean written score was not associated with cancellation (point-biserial r −0.33, p = 0.242). Across 14 respondents, the respondent mean written score was not associated with intent to leave (Spearman rho −0.18, p = 0.530). Of the three comparisons, none 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 = 0.467).

Answers clustered within engagements (ICC 0.69). Clustering reduced the 806 respondent answers to the equivalent of about 200 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 0.84 to 0.83.

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, 85.71%, ranked 26th from the highest, against a median of 80.82%. Its mean written score, −6.1, ranked 14th from the most negative, against a median of −4.7.

The indicator most often present in the same responses was C144, “Rate how well the joint change control process keeps pace with the speed of agent behavior changes.”, in 6 of the 14 responses (42.86%). C141, “Rate how effectively the two firms manage issues arising from agent work as one team rather than through two separate processes.” (4 responses), C147, “Rate how well human review points are placed across the two firms at the moments where agent errors would matter most.” (4 responses), C136, “Rate how effectively the customer and vendor jointly manage this engagement now that agents perform part of the work.” (3 responses) and C139, “Rate how clearly accountability lands on one firm when an agent's action causes a problem in this engagement.” (2 responses) followed.

The most frequent theme was “The scale or question does not fit”, in 4 responses (28.57%). The second was “Raised it, nothing came back”, in 1 responses.

Nearly half of all ratings of how well the two firms govern changes agents make to their own behaviour between releases fell in the distressed range (388 of 806 answers, 48.14%). 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 = 301 respondents).

The written evidence is small and consistent. Change control in these engagements was built around the release, and agents that change between releases fall outside it. Nobody was assigned to watch for that drift, so it was found in the output after it had already affected the work.

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 2 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 (14 responses on 14 engagements). Intervals for written sentiment therefore used a bootstrap by engagement.

The written responses number fewer than 30, so their shares and the written-sentiment tests rest on a small base.