Working directly for a bank would be better than working for an outsourcing vendor

The statement is rated from 1 to 10 with no good or bad end. The mean rating was 6.1 and the median 6.0 (n = 802 respondents). The rating was associated with all four study measures. Higher ratings came with more cancellation (r = 0.59, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.69, p < 0.001, n = 150 engagements), lower customer satisfaction among active engagements (r = −0.73, 95% CI −0.82 to −0.62, p < 0.001, n = 94 engagements), a lower engagement indicator mean (r = −0.79, 95% CI −0.84 to −0.71, p < 0.001, n = 150 engagements) and higher intent to leave (r = 0.75, cluster bootstrap 95% CI 0.70 to 0.80, p < 0.001 with standard errors clustered by engagement, n = 753 respondents). After Holm correction, ratings differed by engagement status and lifecycle stage (Welch F 33.07, Holm p < 0.001, omega squared 0.347) and respondent role (Welch F 11.28, Holm p < 0.001, omega squared 0.020).

No written response addressed the indicator.

The scale has no good or bad end, so no distressed range applies.

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. After Holm correction, ratings differed by engagement status and lifecycle stage (Welch F 33.07, Holm p < 0.001, omega squared 0.347). Canceled engagements rated highest (mean 7.4, n = 305 respondents) and active engagements in Production lowest (mean 5.0, n = 95 respondents). Ratings also differed by respondent role (Welch F 11.28, Holm p < 0.001, omega squared 0.020). Individual contributors rated highest (mean 6.2, n = 620 respondents) and portfolio directors lowest (mean 4.8, n = 30 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 more cancellation (r = 0.59, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.69, 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 lower customer satisfaction (r = −0.73, 95% CI −0.82 to −0.62, 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 does not enter the mean.

Higher ratings came with a lower engagement indicator mean (r = −0.79, 95% CI −0.84 to −0.71, 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 higher intent to leave (r = 0.75, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.78, Holm p < 0.001, n = 753 respondents). The association held after Holm correction in thirty-seven 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 cancellation the weakest. The associations with customer satisfaction and the engagement indicator mean did not differ (Holm p = 0.061).

Answers clustered within engagements (ICC 0.60). Clustering reduced the 802 respondent answers to the equivalent of about 221 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.

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. Its association was weaker than the norm on cancellation, customer satisfaction, the engagement indicator mean and intent to leave.

Stronger the view that working directly for a bank would be better than working for an outsourcing vendor came with more cancellation, lower customer satisfaction among active engagements, a lower engagement indicator mean and higher intent to leave, and every association held under each of the 22 robustness checks. Respondents on canceled engagements rated the statement well above those on the three active stages (mean 7.4, n = 305 respondents).

No respondent wrote about whether working directly for a bank would be better than working for an outsourcing vendor. The evidence for the indicator is therefore the rating alone, and the reasons behind it are not recorded.

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.

No written response addressed the indicator.