Rate how ready the joint management model is for the level of agent autonomy you expect in this engagement within two years

The mean rating was 3.6 and the median 3.0 (n = 808 respondents). Ratings of 3 or below, the distressed range, made up 50.37% of the answers. The rating was associated with all four study measures. Higher ratings came with less cancellation (r = −0.63, 95% CI −0.72 to −0.52, p < 0.001, n = 150 engagements), higher customer satisfaction among active engagements (r = 0.63, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.74, p < 0.001, n = 94 engagements), a higher engagement indicator mean computed without the indicator (r = 0.87, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.90, p < 0.001, n = 150 engagements) and lower intent to leave (r = −0.66, cluster bootstrap 95% CI −0.72 to −0.60, p < 0.001 with standard errors clustered by engagement, n = 761 respondents). After Holm correction, ratings differed by engagement status and lifecycle stage (Welch F 41.72, Holm p < 0.001, omega squared 0.392) and respondent role (Welch F 9.37, Holm p = 0.001, omega squared 0.018).

Three written responses addressed the indicator, all from C156, the comment field on joint management. Two were negative and carried the strongest negative score of −10, and one was neutral. The negative responses described joint arrangements that already lagged the agents: two incomplete issue logs kept separately by each firm, and a single review point that found agent errors after the letter had gone out. Both judged the model unready for the autonomy expected in two years.

Ratings of 3 or below, the distressed range, accounted for 407 of the 808 answers (50.37%). The engagement mean fell in the distressed range in 64 of 150 engagements.

The three responses were primary. Each answered 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.

One respondent described two separate issue logs, one recording what the agent got wrong and the other what reached the financial institution, with the overlap at perhaps half. Each fortnightly meeting began by agreeing what had happened before any decision could be taken, and the respondent called two years of autonomy a fantasy while that held. A second said both firms checked agent work against the same error list, but the only review point sat at the end, so a dispute reason assigned in error was found after the letter was sent. The third said ownership of each step was clear, found the rating scale too fine to carry a distinction and could not judge the position in two years.

Two responses carried the strongest negative score of −10, and one was neutral. With fewer than 10 responses, the distribution is reported as counts only.

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 41.72, Holm p < 0.001, omega squared 0.392). Active engagements in Transition/Cut-Over rated highest (mean 4.6, n = 238 respondents) and canceled engagements lowest (mean 2.2, n = 306 respondents). Ratings also differed by respondent role (Welch F 9.37, Holm p = 0.001, omega squared 0.018). Portfolio directors rated highest (mean 4.8, n = 31 respondents) and individual contributors lowest (mean 3.5, n = 626 respondents). Outsourcing model, institution type, process family, class of work and vendor type showed no difference.

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 = −0.63, 95% CI −0.72 to −0.52, 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 = 0.63, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.74, Holm p < 0.001, n = 94 engagements). The association held after Holm correction in fourteen 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 = 0.87, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.90, 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 = −0.66, 95% CI −0.70 to −0.62, Holm p < 0.001, n = 761 respondents). The association held after Holm correction in thirty-six of the 37 segment levels tested.

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 = 0.662).

Answers clustered within engagements (ICC 0.66). Clustering reduced the 808 respondent answers to the equivalent of about 208 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 0.87 to 0.87.

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.

The responses also addressed five other indicators, among them C138 on the assignment of ownership for each workflow step, C147 on the placement of human review points and C150 on how reliably the joint quality assurance loop catches agent errors. One response carried the theme “The scale or question does not fit”.

About half of all ratings of how ready the joint management model is for the agent autonomy expected within two years fell in the distressed range (407 of 808 answers, 50.37%). 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 = 306 respondents).

Written responses were voluntary. They recorded what the respondents who wrote reported, and how common it was is measured by the ratings. The two negative responses located the shortfall in present arrangements, separate records and a late review point, and drew the conclusion for the future from them. The written evidence rests on three responses, a base of anecdote strength.

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.

Counts of written responses describe the respondents who wrote and not the study set of respondents. With three responses, the written evidence supports counts only and no statistic.