Source: https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-4-c005/
Author: Phil Hatch
Publisher: Akholi

What is your role on this engagement?

Study Data · Part 4 · Indicator Deep-Dive Analysis

# What is your role on this engagement?

Indicator C005 · By Phil Hatch · Akholi · October 9, 2026

← Study Data← Previous indicatorNext indicator →

## On this page

25 sectionsIndicator SpecificationSummary of FindingsDistribution of ResponsesCoverage and Origin of Written ResponsesDistribution of Written SentimentDescriptive Statistics by SegmentTests of Difference Between SegmentsWritten Sentiment by SegmentAssociation with Cancellation RateAssociation with Customer SatisfactionAssociation with the Engagement Indicator MeanAssociation with Intent to LeaveAssociation of Written Sentiment with the Study MeasuresComparison of Associations Across the Four MeasuresClustering and Effective Sample SizeEquivalence Tests of Null ResultsRobustness ChecksMeasure Independence and Part-Whole CorrectionComparison with the Study NormComparison of Written Sentiment with Other Part 4 IndicatorsCo-Occurring Indicators and ThemesInterpretation of the DataLimitationsDefinitionsSources and Provenance

## Indicator Specification

Table 1. Indicator specificationTable

| Field | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Indicator code | C005 |
| Question as asked | What is your role on this engagement? |
| Failure category | Not one of the 100 rated indicators |
| Place in the survey | Respondent Demographics > 1.1 Role and Identity > Role |
| Indicator class | Respondent level |
| Indicator type | Categorical |
| Response scale | Levels: Individual Contributor, Engagement Manager, Portfolio Director, Customer Management Executive |
| Answering base | 850 of 850 respondents gave one of the listed answers, across 150 of 150 engagements. None answered I do not know or I prefer to not answer |
| Non-answers | I do not know 0, I prefer to not answer 0, blank 0 |
| Written responses addressing the indicator | 22 responses from 22 respondents on 21 engagements (0 primary, 22 secondary) |

## Summary of Findings

Table 2. Key results: association of the indicator with the four study measuresTable

| Measure | Effect size | n | Value | p |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Cancellation rate | Not tested: fewer than two levels of 10 or more engagements | | | |
| Customer satisfaction | Not tested: fewer than two levels of 10 or more engagements | | | |
| Engagement indicator mean | Not tested: fewer than two levels of 10 or more engagements | | | |
| Intent to leave | Not tested: fewer than two levels of 10 or more engagements | | | |

All 850 respondents answered the question. Individual contributors numbered 667 (78.47%), engagement managers 150 (17.65%), portfolio directors 31 (3.65%) and customer management executives 2. Every engagement had exactly one engagement manager among its respondents and a majority of individual contributors. Individual Contributor was the assigned answer on every engagement, so no test across answer levels was computed at engagement level. The table of principal results therefore carries no engagement-level test.

At respondent level, with standard errors clustered by engagement, role was associated with the respondents' own ratings and with their intent to leave. The respondents' own engagement indicator mean rose from 3.9 among individual contributors to 4.3 among engagement managers and 5.1 among portfolio directors (p < 0.001). Mean intent to leave fell across the same roles, from 6.9 to 6.5 and 6.1 (p < 0.001). Cancellation and customer satisfaction, both properties of the engagement, did not differ by role.

The written responses addressing the indicator numbered 22, from 22 respondents on 21 engagements. Every response was secondary. Of the 22 responses, 7 were negative and 3 positive. Most described where a decision or a task sat in relation to the respondent's role, and the negative responses described decisions that had fallen to individual contributors because no one on either side would make them.

## Distribution of Responses

Table 3. Distribution of responses, respondent levelTable

| Answer | Respondents | Share of answered (base 850) | Cumulative share | Engagements with at least one | Share of 150 engagements | Distressed |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Individual Contributor | 667 | 78.47% | 78.47% | 150 | 100.00% | Not applicable |
| Engagement Manager | 150 | 17.65% | 96.12% | 150 | 100.00% | Not applicable |
| Portfolio Director | 31 | 3.65% | 99.76% | 31 | 20.67% | Not applicable |
| Customer Management Executive | 2 | 0.24% | 100.00% | 2 | 1.33% | Not applicable |
| Answered, total | 850 | 100.00% | | 150 | 100.00% | |

Each engagement was assigned the role given by the largest number of its respondents. Individual Contributor was that answer on all 150 engagements, and no engagement was tied. Engagement managers numbered 150 on 150 engagements, one on each. Portfolio directors answered on 31 engagements (20.67%) and customer management executives on two.

## Coverage and Origin of Written Responses

All 22 responses were secondary. Each answered a question outside the indicator's survey section and referred to the respondent's role in its content. They came from 8 questions outside the indicator's own survey section (most often C210 with 5 responses, C156 with 4 responses and C198 with 4 responses). Individual contributors wrote 18 of the responses and engagement managers four. Portfolio directors and customer management executives wrote none.

Six responses described a decision that fell to the respondent, above the respondent's role, because no one on either side would make it: who signs off when an agent records a purchase-order status wrongly, whether an income calculation was safe to pass, what went into the financial institution's file, and how customer-facing flows behaved. One respondent counted most of the sign-off points in a banking flow as not functioning, so that the decisions passed to whoever was closest to the problem. Another had become the person newer colleagues consulted instead of the financial institution, at a cost of about an hour a day. A further respondent, given the tooling and a short handover, was the only escalation path when an agent misfired overnight.

Eight responses said the matter asked about lay outside the respondent's role or view, often because a team lead handled it. Three of these, all to C198, said a rating of the third-party ecosystem recorded the respondent's visibility rather than the suppliers: one respondent who processed invoices was asked to rate suppliers never encountered, and another said half the questions were for someone who could see the contracts. Three responses described catching and correcting the output as the respondent's own job, and two described a move from hands-on correction to signing off on changes or reporting upward. The three positive responses, all to C030, named growth into a stronger role, trust with real response privileges and a manager who removed obstacles.

Figure 1. Written responses addressing the indicator, by question answered and written score (n = 22 responses)ExhibitNote: Each bar is one survey question. Every question lies outside the indicator's survey section, so every response is secondary. Segments wide enough to hold a label carry their count. C210 asked: “Comment” C156 asked: “Add any comments on the joint management of this engagement that the ratings in this section do not capture.” C198 asked: “Add any comments on the third-party ecosystem that the ratings in this section do not capture.” C030 asked: “What are the top 3 things that you love most about your job?” C216 asked: “Comment” C114 asked: “Add any comments on the customer organization that the ratings in this section do not capture.” C135 asked: “Add any comments on your employer that the ratings in this section do not capture.” C204 asked: “Comment”Table 4. Written responses by originTable

| Origin | Responses | Respondents | Engagements | Negative | Strongest negative (−10) | Positive | Mean written score |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Primary | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | None |
| Secondary | 22 | 22 | 21 | 7 of 22 (31.82%) | 0 of 22 (0.00%) | 3 of 22 (13.64%) | −0.9 |
| All responses | 22 | 22 | 21 | 7 of 22 (31.82%) | 0 of 22 (0.00%) | 3 of 22 (13.64%) | −0.9 |

## Distribution of Written Sentiment

Figure 2. Distribution of written sentiment (n = 22 responses)ExhibitNote: Column height is the share of the 22 responses. Labels give the count and the share.Table 5. Summary statistics of written sentimentTable

| Statistic | Value | Basis |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Mean written score | −0.9 | † n = 22 |
| Median written score | 0.0 | n = 22 responses |
| Negative responses | 7 of 22 (31.82%) | † n = 22 |
| Strongest negative responses (−10) | 0 of 22 (0.00%) | Statements of totality, constancy or serious harm |
| Positive responses | 3 of 22 (13.64%) | +5 or +10 |
| Net balance | −18.18 percentage points | Share positive minus share negative, base 22 responses |
| Respondent-level mean | −0.9 | Mean of each respondent's own mean written score, n = 22 respondents |

Note: † Base under 30. No interval is reported.

Of the 22 responses, 7 (31.82%) were negative and 3 (13.64%) positive. Neutral responses numbered 12 (54.55%), and no response carried the strongest negative score of −10. The mean written score was −0.9 (n = 22 responses on 21 engagements), and the median was 0.0.

Six of the seven negative responses described a decision that had fallen to the respondent. The remaining negative response described the respondent as the only escalation path when an agent misfired overnight. Most neutral responses said the matter lay outside the respondent's role or view.

## Descriptive Statistics by Segment

Table 6. Descriptive statistics by segmentTable

| Segment | Base | Answered | Answer rate | Engagements | Individual Contributor, share | Engagement Manager, share | Portfolio Director, share |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Study set | 850 | 850 | 100.00% of 850 | 150 | 78.47% | 17.65% | 3.65% |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | |
| CXM | 232 | 232 | 100.00% of 232 | 42 | 77.59% | 18.10% | 4.31% |
| ITO | 244 | 244 | 100.00% of 244 | 40 | 79.51% | 16.39% | 3.69% |
| BPO | 209 | 209 | 100.00% of 209 | 37 | 78.47% | 17.70% | 3.35% |
| KPO | 165 | 165 | 100.00% of 165 | 31 | 78.18% | 18.79% | 3.03% |
| Institution type | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | 132 | 132 | 100.00% of 132 | 24 | 78.79% | 18.18% | 3.03% |
| Wealth management and private banking | 140 | 140 | 100.00% of 140 | 23 | 79.29% | 16.43% | 4.29% |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | 105 | 105 | 100.00% of 105 | 19 | 79.05% | 18.10% | 1.90% |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | 78 | 78 | 100.00% of 78 | 14 | 82.05% | 17.95% | 0.00% |
| Commercial and business banking | 82 | 82 | 100.00% of 82 | 13 | 79.27% | 15.85% | 3.66% |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | 71 | 71 | 100.00% of 71 | 13 | 76.06% | 18.31% | 5.63% |
| Credit card and payments issuing | 73 | 73 | 100.00% of 73 | 12 | 76.71% | 16.44% | 6.85% |
| Retail and consumer banking | 73 | 73 | 100.00% of 73 | 12 | 78.08% | 16.44% | 5.48% |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | 57 | 57 | 100.00% of 57 | 11 | 78.95% | 19.30% | 1.75% |
| Private equity and private capital | 39 | 39 | 100.00% of 39 | 9 | 71.79% | 23.08% | 5.13% |
| Process family | | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | 248 | 248 | 100.00% of 248 | 47 | 77.42% | 18.95% | 3.63% |
| Technology engineering and operations | 204 | 204 | 100.00% of 204 | 35 | 78.92% | 17.16% | 3.92% |
| Client servicing and communications | 94 | 94 | 100.00% of 94 | 16 | 81.91% | 17.02% | 1.06% |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | 80 | 80 | 100.00% of 80 | 15 | 78.75% | 18.75% | 1.25% |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 73 | 73 | 100.00% of 73 | 12 | 75.34% | 16.44% | 6.85% |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | 57 | 57 | 100.00% of 57 | 9 | 82.46% | 15.79% | 1.75% |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | 51 | 51 | 100.00% of 51 | 9 | 76.47% | 17.65% | 5.88% |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | 43 | 43 | 100.00% of 43 | 7 | 76.74% | 16.28% | 6.98% |
| Class of work | | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | 451 | 451 | 100.00% of 451 | 76 | 79.16% | 16.85% | 3.55% |
| Corporate Functional | 399 | 399 | 100.00% of 399 | 74 | 77.69% | 18.55% | 3.76% |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | 175 | 175 | 100.00% of 175 | 31 | 78.86% | 17.71% | 3.43% |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 250 | 250 | 100.00% of 250 | 43 | 77.60% | 17.20% | 4.80% |
| Active, Production | 103 | 103 | 100.00% of 103 | 20 | 76.70% | 19.42% | 3.88% |
| Canceled | 322 | 322 | 100.00% of 322 | 56 | 79.50% | 17.39% | 2.80% |
| Respondent role | | | | | | | |
| Individual Contributor | a | | | | | | |
| Engagement Manager | a | | | | | | |
| Portfolio Director | a | | | | | | |
| Customer Management Executive | a | | | | | | |
| Vendor type | | | | | | | |
| IT services major | 316 | 316 | 100.00% of 316 | 59 | 77.85% | 18.67% | 3.48% |
| BPO specialist | 198 | 198 | 100.00% of 198 | 37 | 76.26% | 18.69% | 4.55% |
| Consulting firm | 117 | 117 | 100.00% of 117 | 23 | 76.92% | 19.66% | 2.56% |
| Boutique or specialist provider | 87 | 87 | 100.00% of 87 | 17 | 75.86% | 19.54% | 4.60% |
| Pure-play agentic AI firm | 75 | 75 | 100.00% of 75 | 14 | 77.33% | 18.67% | 4.00% |
| Not reported, recovered by engagement | 57 | 57 | 100.00% of 57 | 47 | 98.25% | 0.00% | 1.75% |

Note: a Not tested: the segment is the indicator itself.Table 7. Descriptive statistics by segment, remaining answer levelsTable

| Segment | Base | Answered | Answer rate | Engagements | Customer Management Executive, share |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Study set | 850 | 850 | 100.00% of 850 | 150 | 0.24% |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | |
| CXM | 232 | 232 | 100.00% of 232 | 42 | 0.00% |
| ITO | 244 | 244 | 100.00% of 244 | 40 | 0.41% |
| BPO | 209 | 209 | 100.00% of 209 | 37 | 0.48% |
| KPO | 165 | 165 | 100.00% of 165 | 31 | 0.00% |
| Institution type | | | | | |
| Asset management | 132 | 132 | 100.00% of 132 | 24 | 0.00% |
| Wealth management and private banking | 140 | 140 | 100.00% of 140 | 23 | 0.00% |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | 105 | 105 | 100.00% of 105 | 19 | 0.95% |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | 78 | 78 | 100.00% of 78 | 14 | 0.00% |
| Commercial and business banking | 82 | 82 | 100.00% of 82 | 13 | 1.22% |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | 71 | 71 | 100.00% of 71 | 13 | 0.00% |
| Credit card and payments issuing | 73 | 73 | 100.00% of 73 | 12 | 0.00% |
| Retail and consumer banking | 73 | 73 | 100.00% of 73 | 12 | 0.00% |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | 57 | 57 | 100.00% of 57 | 11 | 0.00% |
| Private equity and private capital | 39 | 39 | 100.00% of 39 | 9 | 0.00% |
| Process family | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | 248 | 248 | 100.00% of 248 | 47 | 0.00% |
| Technology engineering and operations | 204 | 204 | 100.00% of 204 | 35 | 0.00% |
| Client servicing and communications | 94 | 94 | 100.00% of 94 | 16 | 0.00% |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | 80 | 80 | 100.00% of 80 | 15 | 1.25% |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 73 | 73 | 100.00% of 73 | 12 | 1.37% |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | 57 | 57 | 100.00% of 57 | 9 | 0.00% |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | 51 | 51 | 100.00% of 51 | 9 | 0.00% |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | 43 | 43 | 100.00% of 43 | 7 | 0.00% |
| Class of work | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | 451 | 451 | 100.00% of 451 | 76 | 0.44% |
| Corporate Functional | 399 | 399 | 100.00% of 399 | 74 | 0.00% |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | 175 | 175 | 100.00% of 175 | 31 | 0.00% |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 250 | 250 | 100.00% of 250 | 43 | 0.40% |
| Active, Production | 103 | 103 | 100.00% of 103 | 20 | 0.00% |
| Canceled | 322 | 322 | 100.00% of 322 | 56 | 0.31% |
| Respondent role | | | | | |
| Individual Contributor | a | | | | |
| Engagement Manager | a | | | | |
| Portfolio Director | a | | | | |
| Customer Management Executive | a | | | | |
| Vendor type | | | | | |
| IT services major | 316 | 316 | 100.00% of 316 | 59 | 0.00% |
| BPO specialist | 198 | 198 | 100.00% of 198 | 37 | 0.51% |
| Consulting firm | 117 | 117 | 100.00% of 117 | 23 | 0.85% |
| Boutique or specialist provider | 87 | 87 | 100.00% of 87 | 17 | 0.00% |
| Pure-play agentic AI firm | 75 | 75 | 100.00% of 75 | 14 | 0.00% |
| Not reported, recovered by engagement | 57 | 57 | 100.00% of 57 | 47 | 0.00% |

Note: a Not tested: the segment is the indicator itself.

Each share is computed on the respondents in that row. Rows with fewer than 10 respondents report counts only. Among the segments with 30 or more respondents, individual contributors made up between 71.79% and 82.46% of the respondents. The exception was the respondents whose vendor type was not reported and was recovered from the engagement: 56 of 57 (98.25%) were individual contributors.

## Tests of Difference Between Segments

Table 8. Tests of difference between segmentsTable

| Segment family | Unit | Chi-square | df | p | Holm p | Cramer's V | Test for p | Levels excluded |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Outsourcing model | Engagement | a | | | | | | None |
| Institution type | Engagement | b | | | | | | Private equity and private capital, n = 9 |
| Process family | Engagement | b | | | | | | c |
| Class of work | Engagement | a | | | | | | None |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | Engagement | a | | | | | | None |
| Respondent role | Not tested: the segment is the indicator itself | | | | | | | |
| Vendor type | Respondent | 19.38 | 15 | 0.187 | 0.187 | 0.09 | Monte Carlo, simulated | None |

Note: a Not tested: fewer than two levels on one side of the table. b Not tested: fewer than two levels of 10 or more engagements. c Levels excluded: Credit, underwriting and suitability, n = 9, Regulatory, audit, tax and legal, n = 9, Financial crime and client onboarding, n = 7.

Every engagement carries the same assigned answer, so the segment families recorded at engagement level could not be tested. Respondent role is the indicator itself. Vendor type, tested on respondents, showed no difference after Holm correction (chi-square 19.38, df = 15, Holm p = 0.187, Cramer's V 0.09, n = 850 respondents).

## Written Sentiment by Segment

Figure 3. Written sentiment by engagement status and lifecycle stage, share of each group's responsesExhibitNote: Each bar is the whole of its group's responses, divided by written score from −10 at the left to +10 at the right. Segments large enough to hold a label carry their share, or their count in groups of fewer than 10 responses.Table 9. Written sentiment by segmentTable

| Segment | Responses | Respondents | Engagements | Mean written score | Negative | Strongest negative (−10) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | 3 | 3 | 3 | ‡ | 0 of 3 | 0 of 3 |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 4 | 4 | 4 | ‡ | 2 of 4 | 0 of 4 |
| Active, Production | 4 | 4 | 3 | ‡ | 0 of 4 | 0 of 4 |
| Canceled | 11 | 11 | 11 | −2.3 | 5 of 11 (45.45%) | 0 of 11 (0.00%) |
| Respondent role | | | | | | |
| Individual Contributor | 18 | 18 | 17 | −0.8 | 6 of 18 (33.33%) | 0 of 18 (0.00%) |
| Engagement Manager | 4 | 4 | 4 | ‡ | 1 of 4 | 0 of 4 |
| Portfolio Director | 0 | 0 | 0 | No responses | | |
| Customer Management Executive | 0 | 0 | 0 | No responses | | |

Note: ‡ Base under 10. No statistic is reported.

Responses from canceled engagements numbered 11 (mean −2.3, n = 11 responses), of which 5 were negative. Each active stage drew fewer than 10 responses and is reported as counts only. The test across the stages on engagement means (Kruskal-Wallis H 6.21, df 3, p = 0.102, n = 21 engagements) showed no difference that reached significance at 0.05.

Individual contributors wrote 18 responses (mean −0.8), of which 6 were negative. Engagement managers wrote four, reported as counts only. No test across respondent roles was run, because no role other than individual contributors drew 10 or more responses, and no role drew 30 or more.

## Association with Cancellation Rate

Cancellation rate is the share of engagements canceled by the study date, measured at engagement level (150 engagements, 56 canceled).

Table 10. Association with cancellation rate by answer levelTable

| Answer level | Engagements | Canceled | Cancellation rate |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Individual Contributor | 150 | 56 | 37.33% |
| Engagement Manager | 0 | No engagements | |
| Portfolio Director | 0 | No engagements | |
| Customer Management Executive | 0 | No engagements | |

Table 11. Association with cancellation rate, tests across answer levels by segmentTable

| Segment | Engagements | Chi-square | df | p | Holm p | Cramer's V | Test for p |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Study set | 150 | a | | | | | |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | |
| CXM | 42 | a | | | | | |
| ITO | 40 | a | | | | | |
| BPO | 37 | a | | | | | |
| KPO | 31 | a | | | | | |
| Institution type | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | 24 | a | | | | | |
| Wealth management and private banking | 23 | a | | | | | |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | 19 | a | | | | | |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | 14 | a | | | | | |
| Commercial and business banking | 13 | a | | | | | |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | 13 | a | | | | | |
| Credit card and payments issuing | 12 | a | | | | | |
| Retail and consumer banking | 12 | a | | | | | |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | 11 | a | | | | | |
| Private equity and private capital | 9 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Process family | | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | 47 | a | | | | | |
| Technology engineering and operations | 35 | a | | | | | |
| Client servicing and communications | 16 | a | | | | | |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | 15 | a | | | | | |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 12 | a | | | | | |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | 9 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | 9 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | 7 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Class of work | | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | 76 | a | | | | | |
| Corporate Functional | 74 | a | | | | | |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | | b | | | | | |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | | b | | | | | |
| Active, Production | | b | | | | | |
| Canceled | | b | | | | | |

Note: ‡ Base under 10. No statistic is reported. a Not tested: fewer than two levels of 10 or more engagements. b Not tested: no variation in cancellation.

Individual Contributor was the assigned answer on every engagement, so no test across answer levels was computed at engagement level. At respondent level, with standard errors clustered by engagement, cancellation did not differ by role (F = 0.95, df = 3 and 149, p = 0.419, n = 850 respondents). Individual contributors were on canceled engagements in 256 of 667 (38.38%) cases, engagement managers in 56 of 150 (37.33%) and portfolio directors in 9 of 31 (29.03%).

## Association with Customer Satisfaction

Customer satisfaction is the percentage recorded against each engagement. The engagement-level estimate uses the 94 active engagements.

Table 12. Association with customer satisfaction by answer levelTable

| Answer level | Engagements | Mean of the measure | SD |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Individual Contributor | 94 | 64.1 | 11.6 |
| Engagement Manager | 0 | No engagements | |
| Portfolio Director | 0 | No engagements | |
| Customer Management Executive | 0 | No engagements | |

Table 13. Association with customer satisfaction, tests across answer levels by segmentTable

| Segment | Engagements | Welch F | df | p | Holm p | Omega squared | 90% CI |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Study set | 94 | a | | | | | |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | |
| CXM | 27 | a | | | | | |
| ITO | 25 | a | | | | | |
| BPO | 23 | a | | | | | |
| KPO | 19 | a | | | | | |
| Institution type | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | 11 | a | | | | | |
| Wealth management and private banking | 15 | a | | | | | |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | 10 | a | | | | | |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | 9 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Commercial and business banking | 9 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | 10 | a | | | | | |
| Credit card and payments issuing | 7 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Retail and consumer banking | 8 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | 8 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Private equity and private capital | 7 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Process family | | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | 28 | a | | | | | |
| Technology engineering and operations | 25 | a | | | | | |
| Client servicing and communications | 7 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | 7 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 10 | a | | | | | |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | 8 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | 5 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | 4 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Class of work | | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | 46 | a | | | | | |
| Corporate Functional | 48 | a | | | | | |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | 31 | a | | | | | |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 43 | a | | | | | |
| Active, Production | 20 | a | | | | | |
| Canceled | | b | | | | | |

Note: ‡ Base under 10. No statistic is reported. a Not tested: fewer than two levels of 10 or more engagements. b Not tested: canceled engagements fall outside the active population.

Individual Contributor was the assigned answer on every engagement, so no test across answer levels was computed at engagement level. At respondent level, with each respondent carrying the customer satisfaction of the engagement and standard errors clustered by engagement, customer satisfaction did not differ by role (F = 0.65, df = 3 and 149, p = 0.583, n = 850 respondents).

## Association with the Engagement Indicator Mean

The engagement indicator mean is the mean of an engagement's ratings across the rated indicators. At respondent level the measure is the respondent's own mean rating across the rated indicators. The role is not a rated indicator and does not enter either mean.

Table 14. Association with the engagement indicator mean by answer levelTable

| Answer level | Engagements | Mean of the measure | SD |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Individual Contributor | 150 | 4.0 | 1.5 |
| Engagement Manager | 0 | No engagements | |
| Portfolio Director | 0 | No engagements | |
| Customer Management Executive | 0 | No engagements | |

Table 15. Association with the engagement indicator mean, tests across answer levels by segmentTable

| Segment | Engagements | Welch F | df | p | Holm p | Omega squared | 90% CI |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Study set | 150 | a | | | | | |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | |
| CXM | 42 | a | | | | | |
| ITO | 40 | a | | | | | |
| BPO | 37 | a | | | | | |
| KPO | 31 | a | | | | | |
| Institution type | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | 24 | a | | | | | |
| Wealth management and private banking | 23 | a | | | | | |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | 19 | a | | | | | |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | 14 | a | | | | | |
| Commercial and business banking | 13 | a | | | | | |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | 13 | a | | | | | |
| Credit card and payments issuing | 12 | a | | | | | |
| Retail and consumer banking | 12 | a | | | | | |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | 11 | a | | | | | |
| Private equity and private capital | 9 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Process family | | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | 47 | a | | | | | |
| Technology engineering and operations | 35 | a | | | | | |
| Client servicing and communications | 16 | a | | | | | |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | 15 | a | | | | | |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 12 | a | | | | | |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | 9 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | 9 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | 7 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Class of work | | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | 76 | a | | | | | |
| Corporate Functional | 74 | a | | | | | |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | 31 | a | | | | | |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 43 | a | | | | | |
| Active, Production | 20 | a | | | | | |
| Canceled | 56 | a | | | | | |

Note: ‡ Base under 10. No statistic is reported. a Not tested: fewer than two levels of 10 or more engagements.

Individual Contributor was the assigned answer on every engagement, so no test across answer levels was computed at engagement level. At respondent level, with standard errors clustered by engagement, the respondents' own mean differed by role (F = 82.55, df = 3 and 149, p < 0.001, n = 850 respondents). It was 3.9 among individual contributors, 4.3 among engagement managers and 5.1 among portfolio directors. The mean share of an individual contributor's own ratings in the distressed range was 45.13%, against 36.81% for engagement managers and 20.36% for portfolio directors. Without the two customer management executives, a level of its own in this test, the difference held (F = 24.18, df = 2 and 149, p < 0.001, n = 848 respondents).

## 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 by up to 798 respondents.

Table 16. Association with intent to leave by answer levelTable

| Answer level | Engagements | Mean of the measure | SD |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Individual Contributor | 150 | 6.8 | 2.4 |
| Engagement Manager | 0 | No engagements | |
| Portfolio Director | 0 | No engagements | |
| Customer Management Executive | 0 | No engagements | |

Table 17. Association with intent to leave, tests across answer levels by segmentTable

| Segment | Engagements | Welch F | df | p | Holm p | Omega squared | 90% CI |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Study set | 150 | a | | | | | |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | |
| CXM | 42 | a | | | | | |
| ITO | 40 | a | | | | | |
| BPO | 37 | a | | | | | |
| KPO | 31 | a | | | | | |
| Institution type | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | 24 | a | | | | | |
| Wealth management and private banking | 23 | a | | | | | |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | 19 | a | | | | | |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | 14 | a | | | | | |
| Commercial and business banking | 13 | a | | | | | |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | 13 | a | | | | | |
| Credit card and payments issuing | 12 | a | | | | | |
| Retail and consumer banking | 12 | a | | | | | |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | 11 | a | | | | | |
| Private equity and private capital | 9 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Process family | | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | 47 | a | | | | | |
| Technology engineering and operations | 35 | a | | | | | |
| Client servicing and communications | 16 | a | | | | | |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | 15 | a | | | | | |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 12 | a | | | | | |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | 9 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | 9 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | 7 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Class of work | | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | 76 | a | | | | | |
| Corporate Functional | 74 | a | | | | | |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | 31 | a | | | | | |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 43 | a | | | | | |
| Active, Production | 20 | a | | | | | |
| Canceled | 56 | a | | | | | |

Note: ‡ Base under 10. No statistic is reported. a Not tested: fewer than two levels of 10 or more engagements.

Individual Contributor was the assigned answer on every engagement, so no test across answer levels was computed at engagement level. At respondent level, with standard errors clustered by engagement, intent to leave differed by role (F = 126.25, df = 3 and 149, p < 0.001, n = 798 respondents). Mean intent to leave was 6.9 among individual contributors, 6.5 among engagement managers and 6.1 among portfolio directors. Without the two customer management executives, the difference held (F = 6.49, df = 2 and 149, p = 0.002, n = 797 respondents).

## Association of Written Sentiment with the Study Measures

Table 18. Written sentiment and the study measuresTable

| Comparison | With a negative response | Without a negative response | Test | Statistic | n | p |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Cancellation rate, engagements | 5 of 7 | 51 of 143 (35.66%) | Fisher exact | | 150 | 0.103 |
| Customer satisfaction, active engagements | n = 2 | 64.42%, n = 92 | ‡ | | 94 | |
| Engagement mean written score and cancellation, engagements | | | Point-biserial r | −0.42 | 21 | 0.060 |
| Respondent mean written score and intent to leave, respondents | | | Spearman rho | −0.52 | 21 | 0.017 |

Note: ‡ Base under 10. No statistic is reported.

The comparisons set engagements with a negative written response against all other engagements, most of which had no written response addressing the indicator. Cancellation affected 5 of the 7 engagements with a negative response, against 51 of the 143 other engagements (35.66%), a difference that did not reach significance at 0.05 (Fisher exact p = 0.103). The customer satisfaction comparison was not computed: only 2 active engagements had a negative response, fewer than 10. The engagement mean written score against cancellation (r = −0.42, p = 0.060, n = 21 engagements) did not reach significance at 0.05.

Across respondents, the respondent mean written score against intent to leave (rho = −0.52, p = 0.017, n = 21 respondents) reached significance at 0.05: respondents whose written responses were more negative reported higher intent to leave. Of the three comparisons computed, one reached significance at 0.05, the correlation of the respondent mean written score with intent to leave.

## Comparison of Associations Across the Four Measures

Table 19. Associations across the four measuresTable

| Measure | Effect size | n | Value | p | Equivalent to zero | Rank among the four |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Cancellation rate | Not tested: fewer than two levels of 10 or more engagements | | | | | |
| Customer satisfaction | Not tested: fewer than two levels of 10 or more engagements | | | | | |
| Engagement indicator mean | Not tested: fewer than two levels of 10 or more engagements | | | | | |
| Intent to leave | Not tested: fewer than two levels of 10 or more engagements | | | | | |

No association with a study measure was tested at engagement level, so no association was ranked or compared. At respondent level, the engagement indicator mean and intent to leave differed by role, and cancellation and customer satisfaction did not.

## Clustering and Effective Sample Size

Table 20. Clustering and effective sample sizeTable

| Statistic | Value | Reading |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Clusters (engagements) | 150 | Engagements with one or more answers. |
| Mean respondents per engagement | 5.7 | Answers per engagement, among engagements with one or more answers. |
| ICC(1) | −0.18 | Share of the variance that lies between engagements. |
| Design effect | 1.00 | One plus the product of the ICC and the mean cluster size less one. |
| Nominal respondent n | 850 | Every answer, with “I do not know” and “I prefer to not answer” counted as levels, as in the plurality rule. |
| Effective n | 850 | Nominal n divided by the design effect. |
| Cluster bootstrap applied | No | Applied to every respondent-level interval where the ICC is 0.05 or above. |

Role did not cluster within engagements (ICC −0.18). Each engagement had one engagement manager and several individual contributors, so respondents on the same engagement gave different answers by the structure of the team. The design effect was 1.00, and the effective n equaled the 850 answers. The respondent-level tests still used standard errors clustered by engagement.

## Equivalence Tests of Null Results

Table 21. Equivalence tests of null resultsTable

| Measure | n | Omega squared | Equivalence bound | Equivalence p | Equivalent to zero | Achieved power | MDE at power 0.80 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Cancellation rate | a | | | | | | |
| Customer satisfaction | a | | | | | | |
| Engagement indicator mean | a | | | | | | |
| Intent to leave | a | | | | | | |

Note: a Not tested: fewer than two levels of 10 or more engagements.

No equivalence test was computed, because no association with a study measure was tested at engagement level. The absence of a test is not evidence of no association.

## Robustness Checks

Table 22. Robustness checksTable

| Check | Measure | Primary p | Check p | Check statistic | Conclusion holds |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Kruskal-Wallis in place of Welch F | Customer satisfaction | Not computed | Not computed | Not computed | Not computed |
| Kruskal-Wallis in place of Welch F | Engagement indicator mean | Not computed | Not computed | Not computed | Not computed |
| Kruskal-Wallis in place of Welch F | Intent to leave | Not computed | Not computed | Not computed | Not computed |
| Active engagements only | Engagement indicator mean | Not computed | Not computed | Not computed | Not computed |
| Active engagements only | Intent to leave | Not computed | Not computed | Not computed | Not computed |
| Respondent level, cluster-robust Wald F by engagement | Cancellation rate | Not computed | 0.419 | 0.95 | Not computed |
| Respondent level, cluster-robust Wald F by engagement | Customer satisfaction | Not computed | 0.583 | 0.65 | Not computed |
| Respondent level, cluster-robust Wald F by engagement | Engagement indicator mean | Not computed | < 0.001 | 82.55 | Not computed |
| Respondent level, cluster-robust Wald F by engagement | Intent to leave | Not computed | < 0.001 | 126.25 | Not computed |

No primary test was computed, so no check is scored as holding or failing. The checks that compare engagement-level tests were not computed. The respondent-level tests found differences by role for the engagement indicator mean (p < 0.001) and intent to leave (p < 0.001) and none for cancellation (p = 0.419) or customer satisfaction (p = 0.583).

## Measure Independence and Part-Whole Correction

Each of the four measures was computed from data the indicator does not contain. At respondent level the engagement indicator mean is the respondent's own mean rating, and the role does not enter it. Each result is therefore a finding and not an arithmetic consequence.

## Comparison with the Study Norm

A categorical indicator has no signed correlation with the study measures and therefore no profile against the study norm. The comparison by role appears in the four association sections.

## Comparison of Written Sentiment with Other Part 4 Indicators

Figure 4. Share of negative written responses, indicators of Part 4 with 30 or more written responses (n = 11 indicators)ExhibitNote: Each column is one indicator, ordered from the highest share of negative responses. The indicator, with fewer than 30 responses, is placed among them as the amber column. The dashed line marks the median share, 33.33%.

The indicator, with 22 responses, stands outside the peer set of the 11 indicators of Part 4 with 30 or more written responses. Placed among them, its share of negative responses would rank 7 of 12 from the highest and its mean written score 5 of 12 from the most negative.

## Co-Occurring Indicators and Themes

Figure 5. Other indicators and themes in the same written responses (n = 22 responses)ExhibitNote: Themes carry no score. Labels give the count and the share of the 22 responses. The figure shows each indicator and each theme among the five most frequent of its kind, with every tie at the cut. The questions of the indicators shown are quoted in the text. Emotional states in the same responses, as counts: calm or fine 2, stressed 2, proud 1, tired 1.

The indicator most often present in the same responses was “Rate the factual reliability of the AI tools' outputs on this engagement before any human review” (C157, 3 responses). “Rate how clearly ownership of each workflow step is assigned when agents, vendor staff, and customer staff work in the same process” (C138, 2 responses), “I have altered client-provided data” (C199, 2 responses), “I have altered client processes” (C205, 2 responses) and “I have altered AI outputs” (C211, 2 responses) shared second place.

The most frequent theme was “Occurs every cycle or most days”, in 4 responses, followed by “Insufficient exposure to rate” in three, all responses to C198.

## Interpretation of the Data

Every respondent answered the question, and the structure of the teams fixed the analysis. Each engagement had one engagement manager and a majority of individual contributors, so every engagement carries the same assigned answer and no engagement-level test could run. At respondent level, the respondents' own ratings rose and intent to leave fell with seniority. Role did not separate respondents on cancellation or customer satisfaction, both properties of the engagement rather than of the respondent.

The written responses place individual contributors at the point where unowned decisions land. Six of the seven negative responses described a decision that the respondent judged to sit above the respondent's role, made because no one on either side would make it. Other responses said the survey asked about matters outside the respondent's view, and three said a rating recorded the respondent's visibility rather than the suppliers. Written sentiment was associated with intent to leave and with none of the other measures computed.

## 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.

Role varies within every engagement, and the engagement-level design assigns each engagement one answer. The engagement-level tests that carry the other indicators could therefore not be computed, and the findings rest on the respondent-level tests.

The customer management executive level holds two respondents on two engagements, whose own means lay far from those of the other roles (mean intent to leave 3.0). The respondent-level tests include that level, so the size of their F statistics for the engagement indicator mean and intent to leave should not be read as a measure of effect.

The respondents' own mean records how each role rated the engagement. Senior roles may rate it from a different vantage, so the difference by role does not establish which rating is accurate.

The written responses number fewer than 30, so their shares and the written-sentiment tests rest on a small base. Shares of written sentiment are shares of responses and not of the study set of respondents. In the sample read by a second reader, the two readers agreed on the presence of the indicator in 2 of the 3 responses either reader marked, and on the score in 2 of the 2 responses both readers scored.

## Definitions

Table 23. DefinitionsTable

| Term | Definition |
| --- | --- |
| Response scale | The answer is one of the listed roles shown in the indicator specification. The indicator is not a rating. No distressed range applies. |
| Answering base | Respondents who gave one of the listed roles. |
| Non-answers | “I do not know” and “I prefer to not answer” are counted separately. They are excluded from the answering base and from the shares. |
| Indicator class | Respondent level: a property of the respondent rather than of the engagement. Respondents on the same engagement hold different roles. |
| Failure category | The five failure categories of the Study Taxonomy apply only to the rated indicators. The indicator carries none. |
| Assigned answer | The answer given by the largest number of an engagement's respondents. A tied engagement carries no assigned answer. |
| Own engagement indicator mean | The mean of a respondent's own ratings across the rated indicators, the respondent-level form of the engagement indicator mean. |
| Clustered test | A test whose standard error allows for the answers of respondents on the same engagement to be alike. |
| Intraclass correlation | The share of the variation in the answers that lies between engagements rather than within them. A value below zero means respondents on the same engagement differ more than respondents chosen at random. |
| Written response | A written answer about the respondent's own engagement that addresses the indicator. Non-answers and answers about another engagement are excluded. |
| Primary and secondary | A 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 score | a |

Note: a Each written response carries one of five scores: −10, −5, neutral, +5 or +10. The sign records whether the response described an effect on the engagement or on the respondent as harmful or helpful. The magnitude records its strength, and −10 marks a statement of totality, constancy or serious harm. A role has no favorable or unfavorable value. Its score therefore records the effect the respondent associated with the role and not a judgment of the role.

## Sources and Provenance

Table 24. Sources and provenanceTable

| Source | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Study data | Study Data.xlsx, Data sheet, column C005, sha256 219eba0457274d04 |
| Statistics engine | compute_statistics.py, sha256 738319eef764602b |
| Statistics record | Computed Statistics.json, record C005, sha256 1ae50a3637fc9370 |
| Computed | October 13, 2026, 04:57 UTC |
| Template | Indicator Template v2, version 2.0 of 10 October 2026 |
| Figures placed by script | 1,009 |
| Written responses | Quotes Master.jsonl, sha256 27da38085e2b13fd |
| Written sentiment scores | Quote Coding Rulebook, version 0.6, with section 21 |
| Written-response computation | qa_stats.py, sha256 74a61f3a96169da9. wfacts.py, sha256 b85fae20adf812a1. build_indicator.py, sha256 c7b10c57927ea734 |
| Written-response records | C005.qa.json, sha256 f86aa9d5f911dcd1. C005.wfacts.json, sha256 99e2eb5901e85ecb. Hand-written text handcraft/C005.json, sha256 e93915e67042cf44 |