How many years have you been working within the financial industry?

Respondents typed the number of years they had worked within the financial industry. The mean answer was 2.1 years and the median 1.0, from 0 to 15 (n = 789 respondents). An answer of zero, recorded as under one year, came from 136 respondents.

The engagement mean of experience was not associated with cancellation (r = −0.03, 95% CI −0.19 to 0.13, p = 0.684, n = 150 engagements), customer satisfaction among active engagements (r = −0.08, 95% CI −0.27 to 0.13, p = 0.470, n = 94 engagements) or the engagement indicator mean (r = 0.00, 95% CI −0.16 to 0.16, p = 0.955, n = 150 engagements), and each association was equivalent to zero. At respondent level, more experienced respondents reported lower intent to leave (r = −0.06, cluster bootstrap 95% CI −0.12 to 0.00, p = 0.033 with standard errors clustered by engagement, n = 742 respondents), an association small enough to be equivalent to zero as well. It did not hold under three of the robustness checks. Financial-industry experience differed sharply by role: individual contributors had a mean of 1.1 years, engagement managers 5.3 and portfolio directors 7.6.

A single written response addressed the indicator. It asked for training in payroll before the work, because no one on the respondent's team had worked in a bank before and the team learned from tickets.

Financial-industry experience is a typed count of years and not a rating, so no distressed range applies. Answers concentrated at the low end: 461 of the 789 answers (58.43%) were under 1.5 years, and 88 (11.15%) were 6 years or more. No respondent answered I do not know or I prefer to not answer, and 136 answers of zero are counted as under one year. The engagement mean of experience ran from 0.8 to 6.4 years.

The single response was secondary. It came from 1 question outside the indicator's own survey section (C135 with 1 response). It asked for proper training in payroll first, because no one on the respondent's team had worked in a bank before and the team learned from tickets.

The single response carried the strongest negative score of −10. 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. Financial-industry experience differed by role (Welch F 254.47, Holm p < 0.001, omega squared 0.647): individual contributors had a mean of 1.1 years (n = 608), engagement managers 5.3 (n = 150) and portfolio directors 7.6 (n = 29). The customer management executive level, with two respondents, did not enter the test. Vendor type showed no difference after Holm correction (Holm p = 0.094).

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 = −0.03, 95% CI −0.19 to 0.13, 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 = −0.08, 95% CI −0.27 to 0.13, 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). Financial-industry 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 = 0.00, 95% CI −0.16 to 0.16, 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 = 0.13, cluster bootstrap 95% CI 0.07 to 0.19, p < 0.001, n = 789 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 = −0.06, cluster bootstrap 95% CI −0.12 to 0.00, p = 0.033 with standard errors clustered by engagement, n = 742 respondents). The engagement-level form did not reach 0.05 (r = −0.02, 95% CI −0.18 to 0.14, 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 = 1.000, 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.

Financial-industry experience did not cluster within engagements (ICC −0.09): 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 789 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 742 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.

Nineteen of the 22 checks held. A check holds when its test falls on the same side of 0.05 as the primary test. Three checks of intent to leave failed. With a rank correlation in place of Pearson's r, the association gave r = −0.07, p = 0.069. With non-answers excluded and then imputed at the engagement mean, it gave r = −0.06, p = 0.054. With the thin-base segments removed, it gave r = −0.05, p = 0.191. The primary result for intent to leave is therefore fragile.

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.

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. Financial-industry experience is not a rating, and its associations were weak.

The single response also addressed C120, on the depth of the employer's knowledge of the financial industry, and C123, on the employer's investment in training its workforce. It carried the theme “Respondent proposes a remedy”.

The engagement mean of financial-industry 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. The association with intent to leave failed three robustness checks, and financial-industry 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.

The single written response is an anecdote. It records a team without banking experience learning from tickets.

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.

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

Financial-industry experience and role are closely aligned (omega squared 0.647). 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 a single response, the written evidence supports description only and no statistic.