How many years of experience do you have in your career?

Respondents typed the number of years of experience in their career. The mean answer was 3.9 years and the median 2.0, from 0 to 25 (n = 797 respondents). An answer of zero, recorded as under one year, came from 61 respondents.

The engagement mean of experience was not associated with cancellation (r = −0.11, 95% CI −0.26 to 0.05, p = 0.191, n = 150 engagements), customer satisfaction among active engagements (r = 0.03, 95% CI −0.17 to 0.23, p = 0.757, n = 94 engagements) or the engagement indicator mean (r = 0.10, 95% CI −0.06 to 0.26, p = 0.208, n = 150 engagements), and each association was equivalent to zero. At respondent level, more experienced respondents reported lower intent to leave (r = −0.09, cluster bootstrap 95% CI −0.15 to −0.04, p = 0.001 with standard errors clustered by engagement, n = 746 respondents), an association small enough to be equivalent to zero as well. Experience differed sharply by role: individual contributors had a mean of 1.9 years, engagement managers 10.0 and portfolio directors 15.1.

Four written responses addressed experience, each in answer to a question outside the indicator's section. Three came from respondents early in their careers.

Experience is a typed count of years and not a rating, so no distressed range applies. Answers concentrated at the low end: 445 of the 797 answers (55.83%) were under 2.5 years, and 114 (14.30%) were 10 years or more. No respondent answered I do not know or I prefer to not answer, and 61 answers of zero are counted as under one year. The engagement mean of experience ran from 1.9 to 7.8 years.

All four responses were secondary. They came from 3 questions outside the indicator's own survey section (C135 with 2 responses, C156 with 1 response and C177 with 1 response). Three came from respondents early in their careers. One described a proposal on the AI practice that the respondent's managers declined to read, on the ground that the author needed more experience. Another described the respondent as a fresher who knew more about AI than the executive team. A third, four months into a first job, described absorbing by hand the work left by decisions no one above would make. The fourth came from a respondent with fourteen years of status reviews, who described a forecast pack withdrawn after a tool reported success it had not achieved.

Of the four responses, one was negative and the others 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, and none differed after Holm correction. Respondent role and vendor type were tested on respondents. Experience differed by role (Welch F 754.01, Holm p < 0.001, omega squared 0.832): individual contributors had a mean of 1.9 years (n = 614), engagement managers 10.0 (n = 150) and portfolio directors 15.1 (n = 31). The customer management executive level, with two respondents, did not enter the test. Experience also differed by vendor type (Welch F 8.92, Holm p < 0.001), a small effect (omega squared 0.011).

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

Across the study set, the engagement mean of experience was not associated with cancellation (r = −0.11, 95% CI −0.26 to 0.05, Holm p = 1.000, n = 150 engagements). The association held after Holm correction in none 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, the engagement mean of experience was not associated with customer satisfaction (r = 0.03, 95% CI −0.17 to 0.23, Holm p = 1.000, n = 94 engagements). The association held after Holm correction in none 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). Experience is not a rated indicator and does not enter the mean.

The engagement mean of experience was not associated with the engagement indicator mean (r = 0.10, 95% CI −0.06 to 0.26, Holm p = 1.000, n = 150 engagements). The association held after Holm correction in none of the 24 segment levels tested. At respondent level, with standard errors clustered by engagement, more experienced respondents gave slightly higher ratings of their own (r = 0.16, cluster bootstrap 95% CI 0.10 to 0.21, p < 0.001, n = 797 respondents).

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.

More experienced respondents reported lower intent to leave (r = −0.09, cluster bootstrap 95% CI −0.15 to −0.04, p = 0.001 with standard errors clustered by engagement, n = 746 respondents). The engagement-level form did not reach 0.05 (r = −0.11, 95% CI −0.27 to 0.05, n = 150 engagements). In the segment table, where the study-set row is corrected together with the segment levels, the study-set row gave Holm p = 0.423, and the association held in none of the 37 segment levels.

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, none of the six pairs differed. Every association was weak.

Experience did not cluster within engagements (ICC −0.12): respondents on the same engagement typed different values, as a team of individual contributors and one engagement manager would. The design effect was 1.00, and the effective n equaled the 797 answers. Respondent-level tests still used standard errors clustered by engagement.

All four associations were equivalent to zero. Intent to leave was both different from zero and equivalent to zero: the association is detectable in 746 respondents and smaller than the bound of a meaningful effect. The detection floor shown is the study floor at 150 engagements.

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.

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.

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 departed from the study's typical pattern on all four measures. The typical indicator is a rating with a strong association with each measure, with study medians from 0.60 to 0.84. Experience is not a rating, and its associations were weak.

The indicators most often present in the same responses were “Rate your overall agentic AI expertise” (C014, 2 responses) and “My manager is effective” (C080, 2 responses). Every other indicator, and each of the six themes, appeared in one response.

The engagement mean of experience was not associated with cancellation, customer satisfaction or the engagement indicator mean, and each result was equivalent to zero. At respondent level, more experienced respondents reported slightly lower intent to leave and rated the engagement slightly higher. Both associations are small, and experience tracks role closely. Role was itself associated with intent to leave and with the respondents' own ratings (C005), so these associations cannot be separated from role here.

Written responses were voluntary. They recorded what the respondents who wrote reported, and how common it was is measured by the answers. The written evidence rests on four 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. Canceled engagements were described after cancellation.

Experience is the respondents' typed report and not a record of employment. An answer of zero is counted as under one year.

Experience and role are closely aligned (omega squared 0.832). The analysis does not adjust for role, so the respondent-level associations with intent to leave and with the respondents' own ratings may reflect role rather than experience.

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