Study Data · Part 4 · Indicator Deep-Dive Analysis

Compared to 5 years ago, I am happier with the work I am doing now

Indicator C022 · By Phil Hatch · Akholi · October 9, 2026

Indicator Specification

Table 1. Indicator specificationTable
FieldValue
Indicator codeC022
Question as askedCompared to 5 years ago, I am happier with the work I am doing now.
Failure categoryNot one of the 100 rated indicators
Place in the surveyRespondent Demographics > 1.3 Sentiment and Retention > Five-Year Shift
Indicator classRespondent level
Indicator typeRated, POS
Response scale1 to 10, higher is the better outcome
Answering base804 of 850 respondents, across 150 of 150 engagements
Non-answersI do not know 0, I prefer to not answer 0, blank 46
Written responses addressing the indicator1 response from 1 respondent on 1 engagement (0 primary, 1 secondary)

Summary of Findings

Table 2. Key results: association of the indicator with the four study measuresTable
MeasureFormnr95% CIp
Cancellation rateDescriptive contrast150 engagements−0.59−0.69 to −0.48< 0.001
Customer satisfactionClean estimate94 engagements0.720.61 to 0.81< 0.001
Engagement indicator meanFull150 engagements0.770.69 to 0.83< 0.001
Intent to leaveRespondent level, clustered755 respondents−0.76−0.80 to −0.70< 0.001

The mean rating was 4.9 and the median 5.0 (n = 804 respondents). Ratings of 3 or below, the distressed range, made up 26.62% of the answers. The rating was associated with all four study measures. Higher ratings came with less cancellation (r = −0.59, 95% CI −0.69 to −0.48, p < 0.001, n = 150 engagements), higher customer satisfaction among active engagements (r = 0.72, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.81, p < 0.001, n = 94 engagements), a higher engagement indicator mean (r = 0.77, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.83, p < 0.001, n = 150 engagements) and lower intent to leave (r = −0.76, cluster bootstrap 95% CI −0.80 to −0.70, p < 0.001 with standard errors clustered by engagement, n = 755 respondents). After Holm correction, ratings differed by engagement status and lifecycle stage (Welch F 32.20, Holm p < 0.001, omega squared 0.347) and respondent role (Welch F 9.51, Holm p = 0.001, omega squared 0.020).

A single written response addressed the indicator, from C177, the comment field on the AI tools, with a positive score of 5. The respondent said the tool had made the job better: the same password and leave-balance questions no longer arrived many times a day, and only the unusual cases where policy was unclear reached the respondent.

Distribution of Ratings

Table 3. Distribution of ratings, respondent levelTable
AnswerRespondentsShare of answered (base 804)Cumulative shareEngagements with at least oneShare of 150 engagementsDistressed
1577.09%7.09%3523.33%Yes
2607.46%14.55%3926.00%Yes
39712.06%26.62%7248.00%Yes
411714.55%41.17%7650.67%No
514417.91%59.08%8456.00%No
614417.91%76.99%8657.33%No
78810.95%87.94%5939.33%No
8587.21%95.15%3523.33%No
9242.99%98.13%1812.00%No
10151.87%100.00%96.00%No
I do not know0Not in baseNot in base00.00%Not applicable
I prefer to not answer0Not in baseNot in base00.00%Not applicable
Answered, total804100.00%150100.00%
Table 4. Distribution of ratings, engagement levelTable
Engagement level summaryEngagementsMean of engagement meansSDMinMedianMaxEngagements with a distressed meanShare of engagements distressed
Engagement means, goodness view1504.91.81.34.89.82617.33%

Ratings of 3 or below, the distressed range, accounted for 214 of the 804 answers (26.62%). The engagement mean fell in the distressed range in 26 of 150 engagements.

Coverage and Origin of Written Responses

Figure 1. Written responses addressing the indicator, by question answered and written score (n = 1 response)Exhibit
00.280.560.841.12C177 (secondary)1−10 Strongly negative−5 Negative0 Neutral+5 Positive+10 Strongly positive
Note: The bar is C177, outside the indicator's survey section, so the response is secondary. Labels give counts. C177 asked: “Add any comments on the agentic AI tools that the ratings in this section do not capture.”
Table 5. Written responses by originTable
OriginResponsesRespondentsEngagementsNegativeStrongest negative (−10)PositiveMean written score
Primary000000None
Secondary1110 of 10 of 11 of 1‡
All responses1110 of 10 of 11 of 1‡
Note: ‡ Base under 10. No statistic is reported.

The single response was secondary. It answered C177, “Add any comments on the agentic AI tools that the ratings in this section do not capture.”. The respondent said the tool had made the job better. Before it, the same password and leave-balance question arrived fifty times a day. Now only the unusual cases reached the respondent, where policy was not clear, and the team was less bored and less tired by evening.

Distribution of Written Sentiment

Figure 2. Distribution of written sentiment (n = 1 response)Exhibit
00.280.560.841.12−10 Strongly negative0 of 1−5 Negative0 of 10 Neutral0 of 1+5 Positive1 of 1+10 Strongly positive0 of 1Responses
Note: Column height is the number of responses at each score. With fewer than 10 responses, labels give counts and no shares.

The single response carried a score of 5. With fewer than 10 responses, the distribution is reported as counts only.

Descriptive Statistics by Segment

Table 6a. Descriptive statistics by segment, part 1 of 2Table
SegmentBaseAnsweredAnswer rateEngagementsMean95% CISD
Study set85080494.59% of 8501504.94.8 to 5.12.2
Outsourcing model
CXM23221994.40% of 232425.35.0 to 5.62.2
ITO24423495.90% of 244404.74.5 to 5.01.8
BPO20919693.78% of 209374.94.5 to 5.22.4
KPO16515593.94% of 165314.84.5 to 5.22.2
Institution type
Asset management13212594.70% of 132244.84.4 to 5.22.3
Wealth management and private banking14012992.14% of 140235.24.8 to 5.52.0
Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination)1059489.52% of 105194.23.8 to 4.62.0
Insurance (life, property and casualty, health)787494.87% of 78144.74.2 to 5.22.2
Commercial and business banking828198.78% of 82135.14.7 to 5.61.9
Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing)7171100.00% of 71135.04.5 to 5.52.2
Credit card and payments issuing736791.78% of 73125.14.5 to 5.82.5
Retail and consumer banking736994.52% of 73125.85.3 to 6.32.1
Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets)575698.25% of 57115.04.4 to 5.51.9
Private equity and private capital393897.44% of 3994.33.6 to 4.92.0
Process family
Corporate and back-office functions24823393.95% of 248474.94.6 to 5.22.3
Technology engineering and operations20419495.10% of 204355.14.8 to 5.31.8
Client servicing and communications949095.74% of 94164.84.3 to 5.22.2
Trade, settlement and reconciliation807391.25% of 80154.54.0 to 5.02.0
Payments, cards and disputes736994.52% of 73125.95.3 to 6.52.5
Credit, underwriting and suitability575596.49% of 5794.74.2 to 5.32.1
Regulatory, audit, tax and legal514894.12% of 5194.84.2 to 5.31.9
Financial crime and client onboarding434297.67% of 4374.63.9 to 5.42.3
Class of work
LOB Operational45142694.46% of 451764.94.7 to 5.12.2
Corporate Functional39937894.74% of 399744.94.7 to 5.22.1
Engagement status and lifecycle stage
Active, Build-Out17516694.86% of 175315.95.6 to 6.22.0
Active, Transition/Cut-Over25023995.60% of 250435.55.3 to 5.81.9
Active, Production1039794.17% of 103206.05.5 to 6.42.0
Canceled32230293.79% of 322563.63.4 to 3.81.7
Respondent role
Individual Contributor66762193.10% of 6671504.84.6 to 5.02.1
Engagement Manager150150100.00% of 1501505.24.8 to 5.52.1
Portfolio Director3131100.00% of 31316.45.6 to 7.12.1
Customer Management Executive222 of 22‡
Vendor type
IT services major31629994.62% of 316595.04.8 to 5.22.0
BPO specialist19818693.94% of 198374.74.4 to 5.12.4
Consulting firm11710993.16% of 117235.04.6 to 5.42.1
Boutique or specialist provider878496.55% of 87175.04.5 to 5.52.2
Pure-play agentic AI firm757397.33% of 75145.44.8 to 5.92.5
Not reported, recovered by engagement575392.98% of 57454.33.8 to 4.81.8
Note: ‡ Base under 10. No statistic is reported.
Table 6b. Descriptive statistics by segment, part 2 of 2Table
SegmentMinQ1MedianQ3MaxDistressed nDistressed %
Study set1.03.05.06.010.021426.62%
Outsourcing model
CXM1.04.05.07.010.04821.92%
ITO1.03.05.06.010.06025.64%
BPO1.03.05.07.010.06231.63%
KPO1.03.05.06.010.04428.39%
Institution type
Asset management1.03.05.06.010.03931.20%
Wealth management and private banking1.04.05.07.010.02519.38%
Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination)1.03.04.06.09.03739.36%
Insurance (life, property and casualty, health)1.03.05.06.08.02128.38%
Commercial and business banking1.04.05.07.09.01619.75%
Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing)1.03.05.06.010.01926.76%
Credit card and payments issuing1.03.05.06.010.01826.87%
Retail and consumer banking1.05.06.07.010.0913.04%
Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets)1.03.05.06.08.01526.79%
Private equity and private capital1.03.04.06.08.01539.47%
Process family
Corporate and back-office functions1.03.05.06.010.07130.47%
Technology engineering and operations1.04.05.06.010.03719.07%
Client servicing and communications1.03.05.06.010.02628.89%
Trade, settlement and reconciliation1.03.04.06.08.02230.14%
Payments, cards and disputes1.04.06.08.010.01420.29%
Credit, underwriting and suitability1.03.05.06.08.01730.91%
Regulatory, audit, tax and legal1.03.84.56.09.01225.00%
Financial crime and client onboarding1.03.05.06.08.01535.71%
Class of work
LOB Operational1.03.05.06.010.011827.70%
Corporate Functional1.03.05.06.010.09625.40%
Engagement status and lifecycle stage
Active, Build-Out1.04.36.07.010.01810.84%
Active, Transition/Cut-Over1.04.06.07.010.03715.48%
Active, Production1.05.06.07.010.01212.37%
Canceled1.02.04.05.08.014748.68%
Respondent role
Individual Contributor1.03.05.06.010.017928.82%
Engagement Manager1.04.05.07.010.03221.33%
Portfolio Director2.05.06.07.510.026.45%
Customer Management Executive‡ n = 2
Vendor type
IT services major1.04.05.06.010.06521.74%
BPO specialist1.03.05.06.010.06132.80%
Consulting firm1.04.05.06.010.02522.94%
Boutique or specialist provider1.03.85.06.010.02125.00%
Pure-play agentic AI firm1.03.06.07.010.02230.14%
Not reported, recovered by engagement1.03.05.06.08.02037.74%
Note: ‡ Base under 10. No statistic is reported.

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.

Tests of Difference Between Segments

Table 7a. Tests of difference between segments, part 1 of 2Table
Segment familyWelch FdfpHolm pOmega squared90% CI
Outsourcing model0.833, 78.30.4841.000−0.0040.000 to 0.046
Institution type1.138, 49.40.3611.0000.0060.000 to 0.083
Process family0.984, 38.30.4321.0000.0070.000 to 0.081
Class of work0.121, 147.90.7311.000−0.0060.000 to 0.023
Engagement status and lifecycle stage32.203, 57.0< 0.001< 0.0010.3470.251 to 0.439
Respondent role9.512, 75.8< 0.0010.0010.0200.008 to 0.041
Vendor type2.295, 235.60.0460.2320.0070.000 to 0.023
Table 7b. Tests of difference between segments, part 2 of 2Table
Segment familyKruskal-Wallis HpDistressed chi-squaredfpCramer's VLevels excluded
Outsourcing model3.400.3341.0830.7810.09None
Institution type8.270.4087.4680.501, simulated0.23Private equity and private capital, n = 9
Process family4.610.3294.2040.382, simulated0.18Credit, underwriting and suitability, n = 9, Regulatory, audit, tax and legal, n = 9, Financial crime and client onboarding, n = 7
Class of work0.080.7780.1310.7210.03None
Engagement status and lifecycle stage57.37< 0.00122.803< 0.001, simulated0.39None
Respondent role16.12< 0.00110.1620.0060.11Customer Management Executive, n = 2
Vendor type10.030.07411.9650.0350.12None

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 32.20, Holm p < 0.001, omega squared 0.347). Active engagements in Production rated highest (mean 6.0, n = 97 respondents) and canceled engagements lowest (mean 3.6, n = 302 respondents). Ratings also differed by respondent role (Welch F 9.51, Holm p = 0.001, omega squared 0.020). Portfolio directors rated highest (mean 6.4, n = 31 respondents) and individual contributors lowest (mean 4.8, n = 621 respondents). Outsourcing model, institution type, process family, class of work and vendor type showed no difference.

Association with Cancellation Rate

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.

Table 8a. Association with cancellation rate by segment, part 1 of 2Table
SegmentEngagementsCanceledCancellation ratePoint-biserial r95% CIpHolm p
Study set1505637.33% of 150−0.59−0.69 to −0.48< 0.001< 0.001
Outsourcing model
CXM421535.71% of 42−0.73−0.84 to −0.54< 0.001< 0.001
ITO401537.50% of 40−0.44−0.66 to −0.150.0040.034
BPO371437.84% of 37−0.66−0.81 to −0.43< 0.001< 0.001
KPO311238.71% of 31−0.52−0.74 to −0.200.0030.029
Institution type
Asset management241354.17% of 24−0.67†< 0.0010.005
Wealth management and private banking23834.78% of 23−0.63†0.0010.017
Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination)19947.37% of 19−0.72†< 0.0010.007
Insurance (life, property and casualty, health)14535.71% of 14−0.59†0.0270.135
Commercial and business banking13430.77% of 13−0.43†0.1400.280
Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing)13323.08% of 13−0.32†0.2860.286
Credit card and payments issuing12541.67% of 12−0.83†< 0.0010.012
Retail and consumer banking12433.33% of 12−0.73†0.0070.049
Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets)11327.27% of 11−0.59†0.0540.216
Private equity and private capital922 of 9‡
Process family
Corporate and back-office functions471940.43% of 47−0.67−0.80 to −0.48< 0.001< 0.001
Technology engineering and operations351028.57% of 35−0.43−0.67 to −0.110.0100.058
Client servicing and communications16956.25% of 16−0.71†0.0020.022
Trade, settlement and reconciliation15853.33% of 15−0.70†0.0040.033
Payments, cards and disputes12216.67% of 12−0.57†0.0550.216
Credit, underwriting and suitability911 of 9‡
Regulatory, audit, tax and legal944 of 9‡
Financial crime and client onboarding733 of 7‡
Class of work
LOB Operational763039.47% of 76−0.54−0.68 to −0.36< 0.001< 0.001
Corporate Functional742635.14% of 74−0.65−0.76 to −0.49< 0.001< 0.001
Engagement status and lifecycle stage
Active, Build-Out3100.00% of 31a
Active, Transition/Cut-Over4300.00% of 43a
Active, Production2000.00% of 20a
Canceled5656100.00% of 56a
Note: † Base under 30. No interval is reported. ‡ Base under 10. No statistic is reported. a Not tested: no variation in cancellation.
Table 8b. Association with cancellation rate by segment, part 2 of 2Table
SegmentOdds ratio per point95% CIAUCRate, distressed engagementsRate, other engagementsFisher pTOST p
Study set0.320.22 to 0.460.8776.92% of 2629.03% of 124< 0.0011.000
Outsourcing model
CXM0.050.00 to 0.490.966 of 625.00% of 36< 0.0011.000
ITO0.420.21 to 0.830.803 of 635.29% of 340.6540.843
BPO0.230.08 to 0.640.906 of 726.67% of 300.0070.998
KPO0.440.23 to 0.820.805 of 729.17% of 240.0780.918
Institution type
Asset management0.24† n = 240.885 of 542.11% of 190.0410.989
Wealth management and private banking0.09† n = 230.932 of 228.57% of 210.1110.971
Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination)0.16† n = 190.905 of 528.57% of 140.0110.992
Insurance (life, property and casualty, health)0.29† n = 140.812 of 225.00% of 120.1100.887
Commercial and business banking0.45† n = 130.820 of 133.33% of 121.0000.686
Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing)0.63† n = 130.770 of 227.27% of 111.0000.528
Credit card and payments issuing0.16† n = 121.003 of 32 of 90.0450.995
Retail and consumer banking0.04† n = 120.94a33.33% of 120.968
Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets)0.33† n = 110.832 of 31 of 80.1520.855
Private equity and private capital‡ n = 9
Process family
Corporate and back-office functions0.260.12 to 0.550.9090.91% of 1125.00% of 36< 0.0011.000
Technology engineering and operations0.360.15 to 0.860.811 of 328.13% of 321.0000.806
Client servicing and communications0.01† n = 161.002 of 250.00% of 140.4750.982
Trade, settlement and reconciliation0.19† n = 150.884 of 436.36% of 110.0770.973
Payments, cards and disputes0.39† n = 120.901 of 210.00% of 100.3180.841
Credit, underwriting and suitability‡ n = 9
Regulatory, audit, tax and legal‡ n = 9
Financial crime and client onboarding‡ n = 7
Class of work
LOB Operational0.420.28 to 0.640.8264.29% of 1433.87% of 620.0660.995
Corporate Functional0.160.07 to 0.390.9291.67% of 1224.19% of 62< 0.0011.000
Engagement status and lifecycle stage
Active, Build-Outb
Active, Transition/Cut-Overb
Active, Productionb
Canceledb
Note: † Base under 30. No interval is reported. ‡ Base under 10. No statistic is reported. a None in this row. b Not tested: no variation in cancellation.

Across the study set, higher ratings came with less cancellation (r = −0.59, 95% CI −0.69 to −0.48, Holm p < 0.001, n = 150 engagements). The association held after Holm correction in fourteen of the 20 segment levels tested.

Association with Customer Satisfaction

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

Table 9a. Association with customer satisfaction by segment, part 1 of 2Table
SegmentActive engagementsClean r95% CIpHolm pSpearman rhop
Study set940.720.61 to 0.81< 0.001< 0.0010.73< 0.001
Outsourcing model
CXM270.73†< 0.001< 0.0010.73< 0.001
ITO250.81†< 0.001< 0.0010.87< 0.001
BPO230.80†< 0.001< 0.0010.74< 0.001
KPO190.72†< 0.0010.0030.660.002
Institution type
Asset management110.69†0.0180.0530.790.003
Wealth management and private banking150.77†< 0.0010.0050.78< 0.001
Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination)100.19†0.6080.6080.200.572
Insurance (life, property and casualty, health)9‡
Commercial and business banking9‡
Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing)100.82†0.0040.0150.850.002
Credit card and payments issuing7‡
Retail and consumer banking8‡
Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets)8‡
Private equity and private capital7‡
Process family
Corporate and back-office functions280.79†< 0.001< 0.0010.83< 0.001
Technology engineering and operations250.71†< 0.001< 0.0010.76< 0.001
Client servicing and communications7‡
Trade, settlement and reconciliation7‡
Payments, cards and disputes100.67†0.0330.0660.650.042
Credit, underwriting and suitability8‡
Regulatory, audit, tax and legal5‡
Financial crime and client onboarding4‡
Class of work
LOB Operational460.750.58 to 0.85< 0.001< 0.0010.70< 0.001
Corporate Functional480.700.52 to 0.82< 0.001< 0.0010.74< 0.001
Engagement status and lifecycle stage
Active, Build-Out310.660.40 to 0.82< 0.001< 0.0010.63< 0.001
Active, Transition/Cut-Over430.810.68 to 0.89< 0.001< 0.0010.83< 0.001
Active, Production200.66†0.0020.0090.620.004
Canceled0a
Note: † Base under 30. No interval is reported. ‡ Base under 10. No statistic is reported. a Not tested: canceled engagements fall outside the active population.
Table 9b. Association with customer satisfaction by segment, part 2 of 2Table
SegmentSlope, points per rating point95% CIR squaredTOST pAll engagementsDescriptive rp
Study set5.114.11 to 6.120.531.0001500.73< 0.001
Outsourcing model
CXM7.20† n = 270.540.999420.83< 0.001
ITO5.05† n = 250.661.000400.62< 0.001
BPO4.69† n = 230.631.000370.79< 0.001
KPO5.20† n = 190.520.992310.69< 0.001
Institution type
Asset management3.96† n = 110.480.939240.74< 0.001
Wealth management and private banking4.77† n = 150.590.992230.76< 0.001
Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination)2.15† n = 100.030.374190.73< 0.001
Insurance (life, property and casualty, health)‡ n = 9
Commercial and business banking‡ n = 9
Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing)5.66† n = 100.670.987130.630.020
Credit card and payments issuing‡ n = 7
Retail and consumer banking‡ n = 8
Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets)‡ n = 8
Private equity and private capital‡ n = 7
Process family
Corporate and back-office functions5.82† n = 280.621.000470.81< 0.001
Technology engineering and operations5.25† n = 250.510.997350.62< 0.001
Client servicing and communications‡ n = 7
Trade, settlement and reconciliation‡ n = 7
Payments, cards and disputes3.62† n = 100.450.909120.750.005
Credit, underwriting and suitability‡ n = 8
Regulatory, audit, tax and legal‡ n = 5
Financial crime and client onboarding‡ n = 4
Class of work
LOB Operational5.514.02 to 7.010.561.000760.70< 0.001
Corporate Functional4.633.22 to 6.050.491.000740.77< 0.001
Engagement status and lifecycle stage
Active, Build-Out3.872.20 to 5.550.440.995310.66< 0.001
Active, Transition/Cut-Over6.525.04 to 7.990.661.000430.81< 0.001
Active, Production4.43†0.430.975200.660.002
Canceleda
Note: † Base under 30. No interval is reported. ‡ Base under 10. No statistic is reported. a Not tested: canceled engagements fall outside the active population.

Across the active engagements, higher ratings came with higher customer satisfaction (r = 0.72, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.81, Holm p < 0.001, n = 94 engagements). The association held after Holm correction in thirteen of the 16 segment levels tested.

Association with the Engagement Indicator Mean

The engagement indicator mean is the mean of an engagement's ratings across the rated indicators, measured at engagement level (150 engagements). The indicator does not enter the mean.

Table 10a. Association with the engagement indicator mean by segment, part 1 of 2Table
SegmentEngagementsLeave-one-out r95% CIpHolm pSpearman rhop
Study set1500.770.69 to 0.83< 0.001< 0.0010.76< 0.001
Outsourcing model
CXM420.790.64 to 0.88< 0.001< 0.0010.78< 0.001
ITO400.700.50 to 0.83< 0.001< 0.0010.71< 0.001
BPO370.850.72 to 0.92< 0.001< 0.0010.79< 0.001
KPO310.740.52 to 0.87< 0.001< 0.0010.72< 0.001
Institution type
Asset management240.75†< 0.001< 0.0010.64< 0.001
Wealth management and private banking230.71†< 0.0010.0020.74< 0.001
Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination)190.67†0.0020.0100.71< 0.001
Insurance (life, property and casualty, health)140.90†< 0.001< 0.0010.82< 0.001
Commercial and business banking130.78†0.0020.0100.790.001
Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing)130.82†< 0.0010.0050.83< 0.001
Credit card and payments issuing120.91†< 0.001< 0.0010.820.001
Retail and consumer banking120.72†0.0080.0190.750.005
Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets)110.88†< 0.0010.0030.85< 0.001
Private equity and private capital9‡
Process family
Corporate and back-office functions470.840.72 to 0.91< 0.001< 0.0010.83< 0.001
Technology engineering and operations350.730.52 to 0.86< 0.001< 0.0010.76< 0.001
Client servicing and communications160.79†< 0.0010.0020.650.006
Trade, settlement and reconciliation150.68†0.0060.0190.550.036
Payments, cards and disputes120.75†0.0050.0190.650.021
Credit, underwriting and suitability9‡
Regulatory, audit, tax and legal9‡
Financial crime and client onboarding7‡
Class of work
LOB Operational760.710.58 to 0.81< 0.001< 0.0010.69< 0.001
Corporate Functional740.820.73 to 0.89< 0.001< 0.0010.83< 0.001
Engagement status and lifecycle stage
Active, Build-Out310.660.40 to 0.82< 0.001< 0.0010.66< 0.001
Active, Transition/Cut-Over430.730.55 to 0.85< 0.001< 0.0010.76< 0.001
Active, Production200.68†0.0010.0080.670.001
Canceled560.24−0.02 to 0.480.0700.0700.220.100
Note: † Base under 30. No interval is reported. ‡ Base under 10. No statistic is reported.
Table 10b. Association with the engagement indicator mean by segment, part 2 of 2Table
Segmentr with indicator includedChange in rSlope95% CIR squaredTOST pEquivalent
Study setNot a component0.620.54 to 0.710.591.000No
Outsourcing model
CXMNot a component0.690.52 to 0.860.621.000No
ITONot a component0.580.39 to 0.770.491.000No
BPONot a component0.570.45 to 0.690.721.000No
KPONot a component0.660.43 to 0.890.551.000No
Institution type
Asset managementNot a component0.62† n = 240.570.999No
Wealth management and private bankingNot a component0.60† n = 230.500.994No
Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination)Not a component0.46† n = 190.440.976No
Insurance (life, property and casualty, health)Not a component0.71† n = 140.801.000No
Commercial and business bankingNot a component0.81† n = 130.610.990No
Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing)Not a component0.69† n = 130.670.996No
Credit card and payments issuingNot a component0.50† n = 120.821.000No
Retail and consumer bankingNot a component0.66† n = 120.520.965No
Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets)Not a component0.86† n = 110.770.999No
Private equity and private capital‡ n = 9
Process family
Corporate and back-office functionsNot a component0.660.53 to 0.790.701.000No
Technology engineering and operationsNot a component0.670.45 to 0.900.531.000No
Client servicing and communicationsNot a component0.72† n = 160.630.997No
Trade, settlement and reconciliationNot a component0.52† n = 150.460.963No
Payments, cards and disputesNot a component0.43† n = 120.570.978No
Credit, underwriting and suitability‡ n = 9
Regulatory, audit, tax and legal‡ n = 9
Financial crime and client onboarding‡ n = 7
Class of work
LOB OperationalNot a component0.590.45 to 0.720.511.000No
Corporate FunctionalNot a component0.660.56 to 0.770.681.000No
Engagement status and lifecycle stage
Active, Build-OutNot a component0.430.24 to 0.610.440.995No
Active, Transition/Cut-OverNot a component0.560.39 to 0.720.531.000No
Active, ProductionNot a component0.54† n = 200.460.982No
CanceledNot a component0.14−0.01 to 0.290.060.330No
Note: † Base under 30. No interval is reported. ‡ Base under 10. No statistic is reported.

Higher ratings came with a higher engagement indicator mean (r = 0.77, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.83, Holm p < 0.001, n = 150 engagements). The association held after Holm correction in twenty-three of the 24 segment levels tested.

Association with Intent to Leave

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.

Table 11a. Association with intent to leave by segment, part 1 of 2Table
SegmentRespondentsr95% CICluster bootstrap 95% CIpHolm p
Study set755−0.76−0.79 to −0.72−0.80 to −0.70< 0.001< 0.001
Outsourcing model
CXM204−0.75−0.80 to −0.68−0.83 to −0.63< 0.001< 0.001
ITO223−0.70−0.76 to −0.63−0.79 to −0.56< 0.001< 0.001
BPO183−0.82−0.86 to −0.77−0.87 to −0.74< 0.001< 0.001
KPO145−0.74−0.81 to −0.66−0.84 to −0.59< 0.001< 0.001
Institution type
Asset management115−0.74−0.81 to −0.65−0.84 to −0.53< 0.001< 0.001
Wealth management and private banking122−0.79−0.85 to −0.72−0.87 to −0.66< 0.001< 0.001
Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination)89−0.65−0.75 to −0.51−0.83 to −0.40< 0.001< 0.001
Insurance (life, property and casualty, health)67−0.78−0.86 to −0.66−0.89 to −0.61< 0.001< 0.001
Commercial and business banking75−0.62−0.75 to −0.46−0.78 to −0.44< 0.001< 0.001
Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing)69−0.78−0.86 to −0.66−0.88 to −0.59< 0.001< 0.001
Credit card and payments issuing64−0.84−0.90 to −0.74−0.91 to −0.69< 0.001< 0.001
Retail and consumer banking63−0.81−0.88 to −0.70−0.90 to −0.61< 0.001< 0.001
Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets)54−0.69−0.81 to −0.52−0.84 to −0.42< 0.001< 0.001
Private equity and private capital37−0.76−0.87 to −0.58§ n = 9< 0.001< 0.001
Process family
Corporate and back-office functions213−0.79−0.84 to −0.74−0.86 to −0.70< 0.001< 0.001
Technology engineering and operations184−0.70−0.76 to −0.61−0.79 to −0.56< 0.001< 0.001
Client servicing and communications85−0.66−0.77 to −0.53−0.81 to −0.38< 0.001< 0.001
Trade, settlement and reconciliation68−0.78−0.86 to −0.67−0.88 to −0.53< 0.001< 0.001
Payments, cards and disputes66−0.88−0.93 to −0.81−0.93 to −0.73< 0.001< 0.001
Credit, underwriting and suitability51−0.83−0.90 to −0.72§ n = 9< 0.001< 0.001
Regulatory, audit, tax and legal47−0.69−0.81 to −0.50§ n = 9< 0.001< 0.001
Financial crime and client onboarding41−0.65−0.80 to −0.43§ n = 7< 0.001< 0.001
Class of work
LOB Operational399−0.74−0.78 to −0.70−0.80 to −0.67< 0.001< 0.001
Corporate Functional356−0.77−0.81 to −0.73−0.83 to −0.70< 0.001< 0.001
Engagement status and lifecycle stage
Active, Build-Out158−0.81−0.86 to −0.75−0.87 to −0.73< 0.001< 0.001
Active, Transition/Cut-Over227−0.79−0.84 to −0.74−0.85 to −0.70< 0.001< 0.001
Active, Production89−0.85−0.90 to −0.78−0.91 to −0.69< 0.001< 0.001
Canceled281−0.23−0.34 to −0.12−0.34 to −0.12< 0.001< 0.001
Respondent role
Individual Contributor573−0.77−0.80 to −0.73−0.81 to −0.71< 0.001< 0.001
Engagement Manager150−0.74−0.80 to −0.65−0.80 to −0.66< 0.001< 0.001
Portfolio Director31−0.67−0.83 to −0.41−0.82 to −0.43< 0.001< 0.001
Customer Management Executive1‡
Vendor type
IT services major285−0.74−0.79 to −0.68−0.80 to −0.65< 0.001< 0.001
BPO specialist171−0.74−0.80 to −0.67−0.83 to −0.61< 0.001< 0.001
Consulting firm102−0.76−0.83 to −0.66−0.86 to −0.60< 0.001< 0.001
Boutique or specialist provider77−0.76−0.84 to −0.64−0.85 to −0.57< 0.001< 0.001
Pure-play agentic AI firm71−0.86−0.91 to −0.78−0.93 to −0.72< 0.001< 0.001
Not reported, recovered by engagement49−0.73−0.84 to −0.56−0.90 to −0.45< 0.001< 0.001
Note: § Too few engagements for a cluster bootstrap interval. ‡ Base under 10. No statistic is reported.
Table 11b. Association with intent to leave by segment, part 2 of 2Table
SegmentSpearman rhopShare at 7 or above, distressedShare at 7 or above, otherEngagementsEngagement level r95% CITOST p
Study set−0.74< 0.00198.51% of 20137.00% of 554150−0.89−0.92 to −0.851.000
Outsourcing model
CXM−0.73< 0.00197.83% of 4630.38% of 15842−0.90−0.95 to −0.821.000
ITO−0.66< 0.00198.28% of 5845.45% of 16540−0.86−0.93 to −0.751.000
BPO−0.82< 0.001100.00% of 5732.54% of 12637−0.94−0.97 to −0.881.000
KPO−0.71< 0.00197.50% of 4039.05% of 10531−0.83−0.91 to −0.671.000
Institution type
Asset management−0.70< 0.00197.22% of 3649.37% of 7924−0.87†1.000
Wealth management and private banking−0.78< 0.001100.00% of 2436.73% of 9823−0.90†1.000
Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination)−0.63< 0.001100.00% of 3441.82% of 5519−0.81†1.000
Insurance (life, property and casualty, health)−0.77< 0.001100.00% of 1935.42% of 4814−0.90†1.000
Commercial and business banking−0.63< 0.00192.86% of 1434.43% of 6113−0.85†0.999
Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing)−0.76< 0.00194.74% of 1936.00% of 5013−0.92†1.000
Credit card and payments issuing−0.82< 0.001100.00% of 1734.04% of 4712−0.95†1.000
Retail and consumer banking−0.80< 0.001‡ n = 832.73% of 5512−0.92†1.000
Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets)−0.67< 0.001100.00% of 1523.08% of 3911−0.87†0.998
Private equity and private capital−0.72< 0.001100.00% of 1536.36% of 229‡‡
Process family
Corporate and back-office functions−0.77< 0.00198.46% of 6537.16% of 14847−0.90−0.94 to −0.821.000
Technology engineering and operations−0.68< 0.00197.22% of 3636.49% of 14835−0.85−0.92 to −0.721.000
Client servicing and communications−0.58< 0.001100.00% of 2550.00% of 6016−0.88†1.000
Trade, settlement and reconciliation−0.78< 0.001100.00% of 2052.08% of 4815−0.90†1.000
Payments, cards and disputes−0.86< 0.001100.00% of 149.62% of 5212−0.96†1.000
Credit, underwriting and suitability−0.82< 0.001100.00% of 1416.22% of 379‡‡
Regulatory, audit, tax and legal−0.65< 0.00191.67% of 1251.43% of 359‡‡
Financial crime and client onboarding−0.63< 0.001100.00% of 1546.15% of 267‡‡
Class of work
LOB Operational−0.73< 0.00199.11% of 11236.93% of 28776−0.88−0.92 to −0.821.000
Corporate Functional−0.75< 0.00197.75% of 8937.08% of 26774−0.90−0.93 to −0.841.000
Engagement status and lifecycle stage
Active, Build-Out−0.81< 0.00194.12% of 1716.31% of 14131−0.95−0.97 to −0.891.000
Active, Transition/Cut-Over−0.77< 0.00194.29% of 3515.63% of 19243−0.96−0.98 to −0.931.000
Active, Production−0.80< 0.001100.00% of 1210.39% of 7720−0.95†1.000
Canceled−0.25< 0.001100.00% of 137100.00% of 14456−0.42−0.62 to −0.180.852
Respondent role
Individual Contributor−0.75< 0.00198.20% of 16737.19% of 406150−0.88−0.91 to −0.841.000
Engagement Manager−0.72< 0.001100.00% of 3236.44% of 118150−0.74−0.80 to −0.651.000
Portfolio Director−0.70< 0.001‡ n = 237.93% of 2931−0.67−0.83 to −0.410.996
Customer Management Executive‡ n = 1
Vendor type
IT services major−0.72< 0.001100.00% of 6441.18% of 22159−0.88−0.93 to −0.811.000
BPO specialist−0.72< 0.00198.18% of 5537.93% of 11637−0.86−0.93 to −0.741.000
Consulting firm−0.75< 0.00195.24% of 2134.57% of 8123−0.87†1.000
Boutique or specialist provider−0.74< 0.001100.00% of 2038.60% of 5717−0.93†1.000
Pure-play agentic AI firm−0.86< 0.001100.00% of 2220.41% of 4914−0.96†1.000
Not reported, recovered by engagement−0.75< 0.00194.74% of 1933.33% of 3041−0.73−0.85 to −0.541.000
Note: † Base under 30. No interval is reported. ‡ Base under 10. No statistic is reported.

Respondents who gave higher ratings reported lower intent to leave (r = −0.76, 95% CI −0.79 to −0.72, Holm p < 0.001, n = 755 respondents). The association held after Holm correction in thirty-seven of the 37 segment levels tested.

Comparison of Associations Across the Four Measures

Table 12. Associations across the four measuresTable
MeasureFormUnitnr95% CIpEquivalent to zeroRank among the four
Cancellation rateDescriptive contrastEngagement150−0.59−0.69 to −0.48< 0.001No4
Customer satisfactionClean estimateEngagement940.720.61 to 0.81< 0.001No3
Engagement indicator meanFullEngagement1500.770.69 to 0.83< 0.001No1
Intent to leaveRespondent level, clusteredRespondent755−0.76−0.80 to −0.70< 0.001No2
Table 13. Pairwise comparison of associationsTable
Pair comparedDifference in rSteiger zpHolm pReading
Cancellation rate and customer satisfaction−0.14−6.65< 0.001< 0.001Differed
Cancellation rate and engagement indicator mean−0.17−4.19< 0.001< 0.001Differed
Cancellation rate and intent to leave−0.30−10.57< 0.001< 0.001Differed
Customer satisfaction and engagement indicator mean−0.03−1.200.2310.231Did not differ
Customer satisfaction and intent to leave−0.16−8.41< 0.001< 0.001Differed
Engagement indicator mean and intent to leave−0.13−5.71< 0.001< 0.001Differed

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 cancellation the weakest. The associations with customer satisfaction and the engagement indicator mean did not differ (Holm p = 0.231).

Clustering and Effective Sample Size

Table 14. Clustering and effective sample sizeTable
StatisticValueReading
Clusters (engagements)150Engagements with one or more answers.
Mean respondents per engagement5.4Answers per engagement, among engagements with one or more answers.
ICC(1)0.60Share of the variance that lies between engagements.
Design effect3.61One plus the product of the ICC and the mean cluster size less one.
Nominal respondent n804Respondents who answered.
Effective n223Nominal n divided by the design effect.
Cluster bootstrap appliedYesApplied to every respondent-level interval where the ICC is 0.05 or above.

Answers clustered within engagements (ICC 0.60). Clustering reduced the 804 respondent answers to the equivalent of about 223 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.

Equivalence Tests of Null Results

Table 15. Equivalence tests of null resultsTable
MeasurenrEquivalence boundTOST p, lowerTOST p, upperEquivalent to zeroAchieved powerMDE at power 0.80Detection floor for this n
Cancellation rate150−0.59|r| < 0.301.000< 0.001No0.960.230.23
Customer satisfaction940.72|r| < 0.30< 0.0011.000No0.840.290.23
Engagement indicator mean1500.77|r| < 0.30< 0.0011.000No0.960.230.23
Intent to leave755, effective 209−0.76|r| < 0.301.000< 0.001No0.990.190.23

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.

Robustness Checks

Table 16. Robustness checksTable
CheckMeasurePrimary rCheck r95% CIChangeConclusion holds
Rank correlation in place of PearsonCancellation rate−0.59−0.62a−0.02Yes
Rank correlation in place of PearsonCustomer satisfaction0.720.73a0.00Yes
Rank correlation in place of PearsonEngagement indicator mean0.770.76a−0.01Yes
Rank correlation in place of PearsonIntent to leave−0.76−0.74a0.02Yes
Non-answers excluded, then imputed at the engagement meanIntent to leave−0.76−0.76a−0.01Yes
Active engagements onlyEngagement indicator mean0.770.680.56 to 0.78−0.08Yes
Active engagements onlyIntent to leave−0.76−0.81−0.84 to −0.78−0.06Yes
Most influential engagement removed (largest Cook's distance)Cancellation rate−0.59−0.61−0.70 to −0.50−0.02Yes
Most influential engagement removed (largest Cook's distance)Customer satisfaction0.720.750.64 to 0.830.02Yes
Most influential engagement removed (largest Cook's distance)Engagement indicator mean0.770.780.70 to 0.830.01Yes
Most influential engagement removed (largest Cook's distance)Intent to leave−0.76−0.76−0.79 to −0.73−0.01Yes
Engagements weighted by respondent countCancellation rate−0.59−0.59a0.00Yes
Engagements weighted by respondent countCustomer satisfaction0.720.72a0.00Yes
Engagements weighted by respondent countEngagement indicator mean0.770.76a−0.01Yes
Bootstrap of engagementsCancellation rate−0.59−0.59−0.68 to −0.500.00Yes
Bootstrap of engagementsCustomer satisfaction0.720.720.62 to 0.810.00Yes
Bootstrap of engagementsEngagement indicator mean0.770.770.70 to 0.820.00Yes
Bootstrap of engagementsIntent to leave−0.76−0.76−0.80 to −0.700.00Yes
Thin-base segments removedCancellation rate−0.59−0.59−0.72 to −0.430.00Yes
Thin-base segments removedCustomer satisfaction0.720.730.58 to 0.840.01Yes
Thin-base segments removedEngagement indicator mean0.770.800.71 to 0.870.03Yes
Thin-base segments removedIntent to leave−0.76−0.76−0.80 to −0.710.00Yes
Note: a No interval for this check.

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.

Measure Independence and Part-Whole Correction

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.

Comparison with the Study Norm

Table 17. Comparison with the study normTable
MeasureThe indicator, oriented rStudy median, oriented rDeviationFisher zpHolm p
Cancellation rate0.590.600.00−0.080.9381.000
Customer satisfaction0.730.720.010.360.7181.000
Engagement indicator mean0.770.84−0.07−2.380.0180.053
Intent to leave0.900.710.186.79< 0.001< 0.001
Spread of deviations0.25
VerdictDivergent

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 intent to leave. Its association was stronger than the norm on intent to leave.

Co-Occurring Indicators and Themes

Figure 3. Other indicators and themes in the same written response (n = 1 response)Exhibit
00.280.560.841.12C0241 of 1C0201 of 1C0181 of 1Other indicatorsThemes
Note: Labels give counts. C018: “How happy are you with your current job?” C020: “How happy is your extended team with the current engagement?” C024: “Compared to 5 years ago, the team I work with seems to be happier.”

The response also addressed C018, on the respondent's own job happiness, C020, on the happiness of the extended team, and C024. It carried no theme.

Interpretation of the Data

About a quarter of all ratings of whether respondents were happier with their work than five years earlier fell in the distressed range (214 of 804 answers, 26.62%). The rating was associated with all four study measures, and every association held under each of the 22 robustness checks. Canceled engagements rated well below the three active stages (mean 3.6, n = 302 respondents).

The single written response is an anecdote. It describes an AI tool that took the repeated questions and left the respondent the cases that needed judgment.

Limitations

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.

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

Definitions

Table 18. DefinitionsTable
TermDefinition
Response scaleRatings run from 1 to 10, from the worst outcome a respondent can report to the best.
DistressedA rating of 3 or below. At engagement level, an engagement mean of 3 or below.
Answering baseRespondents who gave a rating from 1 to 10.
Non-answers“I do not know” and “I prefer to not answer” are counted separately and excluded from the mean.
Indicator classRespondent level: a value recorded for each respondent and computed across the respondents who answered.
Failure categoryThe five failure categories of the Study Taxonomy apply only to the rated indicators. The indicator is not a rated indicator and carries none.
Engagement indicator meanThe mean of an engagement's ratings across the rated indicators. The indicator does not enter it.
Written responseA written answer about the respondent's own engagement that addresses the indicator. Non-answers and answers about another engagement are excluded.
Primary and secondaryA primary response answered the written-answer question of the indicator's survey section. A secondary response answered a question in another section and addressed the indicator in its content.
Written sentiment scoreEach written response carries one of five scores: −10, −5, neutral, +5 or +10. The sign records whether the response described the state of the indicator as harmful or helpful to the engagement. The magnitude records its strength. A score of −10 marks a statement of totality, constancy or serious harm.
Cluster bootstrapAn interval computed by resampling engagements rather than responses, so that the responses from one engagement stay together.
Anecdote strengthA base under 10, reported as counts only.

Sources and Provenance

Table 19. Sources and provenanceTable
SourceValue
Study dataStudy Data.xlsx, Data sheet, column C022, sha256 219eba0457274d04
Statistics enginecompute_statistics.py, sha256 738319eef764602b
Statistics recordComputed Statistics.json, record C022, sha256 1ae50a3637fc9370
ComputedOctober 13, 2026, 04:57 UTC
TemplateIndicator Template v2, version 2.0 of 10 October 2026
Figures placed by script2,788
Written responsesQuotes Master.jsonl, sha256 27da38085e2b13fd
Written sentiment scoresQuote Coding Rulebook, version 0.6, with section 21
Written-response computationqa_stats.py, sha256 74a61f3a96169da9. wfacts.py, sha256 b85fae20adf812a1. build_indicator.py, sha256 a97ad6e74627e11e
Written-response recordsC022.qa.json, sha256 4822bbd1db56df57. C022.wfacts.json, sha256 a931839f61ba513a. Hand-written text handcraft/C022.json, sha256 7e6f8b79a25c2046

Continue the report

Executive summary →
Overview

Executive Summary

Four findings from 150 engagements

Read →
Introduction

Introduction

Scope, evidence, and how the report is organized

Read →
Part 1

Engagement Outcomes

Poor results on every measure, and what separates them

Read →
Part 2

The Five Failure Categories

Where failure concentrates, category by category

Read →
Part 3

Governance, Oversight, and Control

Controls that existed in name only

Read →
Part 4

The Delivery Workforce

Early in their careers, dissatisfied, and many intending to leave

Read →
Part 5

Manual Alteration

How the delivery team altered the work to sustain it

Read →
Part 6

Executive Action Plan

Seven immediate actions and a first-year plan

Read →
Appendices

Appendices

Definitions, indicator inventory, method, and disclosures

Read →
Data

Study Data

Deep-dive analyses of the study indicators, published in stages

Read →