Source: https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-4-c011/
Author: Phil Hatch
Publisher: Akholi

How many agentic AI outsourcing engagements have you worked on across your career, including this one?

Study Data · Part 4 · Indicator Deep-Dive Analysis

# How many agentic AI outsourcing engagements have you worked on across your career, including this one?

Indicator C011 · By Phil Hatch · Akholi · October 9, 2026

← Study Data← Previous indicatorNext indicator →

## On this page

22 sectionsIndicator SpecificationSummary of FindingsDistribution of ResponsesCoverage and Origin of Written ResponsesDistribution of Written SentimentDescriptive Statistics by SegmentTests of Difference Between SegmentsAssociation with Cancellation RateAssociation with Customer SatisfactionAssociation with the Engagement Indicator MeanAssociation with Intent to LeaveComparison of Associations Across the Four MeasuresClustering and Effective Sample SizeEquivalence Tests of Null ResultsRobustness ChecksMeasure Independence and Part-Whole CorrectionComparison with the Study NormCo-Occurring Indicators and ThemesInterpretation of the DataLimitationsDefinitionsSources and Provenance

## Indicator Specification

Table 1. Indicator specificationTable

| Field | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Indicator code | C011 |
| Question as asked | How many agentic AI outsourcing engagements have you worked on across your career, including this one? |
| Failure category | Not one of the 100 rated indicators |
| Place in the survey | Respondent Demographics > 1.2 Experience and Expertise > Tenure |
| Indicator class | Respondent level |
| Indicator type | Typed number |
| Response scale | A number, as typed or recorded |
| Answering base | 799 of 850 respondents, across 150 of 150 engagements |
| Non-answers | I do not know 0, I prefer to not answer 0, blank 51 |
| Written responses addressing the indicator | 8 responses from 8 respondents on 7 engagements (0 primary, 8 secondary) |

## Summary of Findings

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

| Measure | Form | n | r | 95% CI | p |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Cancellation rate | Descriptive contrast | 150 engagements | −0.05 | −0.21 to 0.11 | 0.553 |
| Customer satisfaction | Clean estimate | 94 engagements | −0.02 | −0.22 to 0.18 | 0.840 |
| Engagement indicator mean | Full | 150 engagements | 0.07 | −0.09 to 0.23 | 0.385 |
| Intent to leave | Respondent level, clustered | 751 respondents | −0.03 | −0.10 to 0.04 | 0.370 |

Respondents typed the number of agentic AI outsourcing engagements they had worked on across their careers, including the current one. The mean answer was 1.8 and the median 2.0, from 1 to 5 (n = 799 respondents). For 371 respondents (46.43%), the current engagement was the first.

The engagement mean of the count was not associated with cancellation (r = −0.05, 95% CI −0.21 to 0.11, p = 0.553, n = 150 engagements), customer satisfaction among active engagements (r = −0.02, 95% CI −0.22 to 0.18, p = 0.840, n = 94 engagements) or the engagement indicator mean (r = 0.07, 95% CI −0.09 to 0.23, p = 0.385, n = 150 engagements), and at respondent level it was not associated with intent to leave (r = −0.03, cluster bootstrap 95% CI −0.10 to 0.04, p = 0.370 with standard errors clustered by engagement, n = 751 respondents). Each association was equivalent to zero, and every robustness check held. Engagement managers and portfolio directors had worked on more such engagements than individual contributors.

Eight written responses addressed the indicator, and seven named how many engagements of this kind the respondent had worked on.

## Distribution of Responses

Table 3. Distribution of responses, respondent levelTable

| Answer | Respondents | Share of answered (base 799) | Cumulative share | Engagements with at least one | Share of 150 engagements | Distressed |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1.0 to 1.4 | 371 | 46.43% | 46.43% | 144 | 96.00% | Not applicable |
| 1.4 to 1.8 | 0 | 0.00% | 46.43% | 0 | 0.00% | Not applicable |
| 1.8 to 2.2 | 238 | 29.79% | 76.22% | 126 | 84.00% | Not applicable |
| 2.2 to 2.6 | 0 | 0.00% | 76.22% | 0 | 0.00% | Not applicable |
| 2.6 to 3.0 | 0 | 0.00% | 76.22% | 0 | 0.00% | Not applicable |
| 3.0 to 3.4 | 151 | 18.90% | 95.12% | 96 | 64.00% | Not applicable |
| 3.4 to 3.8 | 0 | 0.00% | 95.12% | 0 | 0.00% | Not applicable |
| 3.8 to 4.2 | 27 | 3.38% | 98.50% | 27 | 18.00% | Not applicable |
| 4.2 to 4.6 | 0 | 0.00% | 98.50% | 0 | 0.00% | Not applicable |
| 4.6 to 5.0 | 12 | 1.50% | 100.00% | 12 | 8.00% | Not applicable |
| I do not know | 0 | Not in base | Not in base | 0 | 0.00% | Not applicable |
| I prefer to not answer | 0 | Not in base | Not in base | 0 | 0.00% | Not applicable |
| Answered, total | 799 | 100.00% | | 150 | 100.00% | |

Table 4. Distribution of responses, engagement levelTable

| Engagement level summary | Engagements | Mean of engagement means | SD | Min | Median | Max | Engagements with a distressed mean | Share of engagements distressed |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Engagement means, as recorded | 150 | 1.8 | 0.4 | 1.0 | 1.8 | 2.7 | Not applicable | Not applicable |

The count is a typed whole number and not a rating, so no distressed range applies. The table groups values in bands of 0.4, so the bands that hold no whole number are empty. One engagement was the most common answer (371 respondents), followed by two (238) and three (151). Four or more came from 39 respondents. No respondent answered I do not know or I prefer to not answer. The engagement mean of the count ran from 1.0 to 2.7.

## Coverage and Origin of Written Responses

All eight responses were secondary. They came from 3 questions outside the indicator's own survey section (C135 with 4 responses, C114 with 2 responses and C156 with 2 responses). Seven named how many engagements of this kind the respondent had worked on, from one to four. Of these, four named three or more. Those with more engagements behind them used them as a comparison: one had never seen a financial institution this unready to start, one had seen quality assurance for agent output built after the work was sold on four accounts, and two contrasted the engagement with earlier ones where someone could decide on the spot or where ownership of a correction was clear. One respondent who had seen a single engagement had received no sanctions training and learned the lists from a colleague. Two respondents on their second or third engagement described the route from a working prototype to governed production as thin or unwritten, and one had written most of it on the live engagement.

Figure 1. Written responses addressing the indicator, by question answered and written score (n = 8 responses)ExhibitNote: Each bar is one survey question outside the indicator's survey section, so every response is secondary. Segments carry their count. C135 asked: “Add any comments on your employer that the ratings in this section do not capture.” C114 asked: “Add any comments on the customer organization that the ratings in this section do not capture.” C156 asked: “Add any comments on the joint management of this engagement that the ratings in this section do not capture.”Table 5. 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 | 8 | 8 | 7 | 1 of 8 | 0 of 8 | 0 of 8 | ‡ |
| All responses | 8 | 8 | 7 | 1 of 8 | 0 of 8 | 0 of 8 | ‡ |

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

## Distribution of Written Sentiment

Figure 2. Distribution of written sentiment (n = 8 responses)ExhibitNote: Column height is the number of responses at each score. With fewer than 10 responses, labels give counts and no shares.

Of the eight responses, one was negative and the others neutral. 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

| Segment | Base | Answered | Answer rate | Engagements | Mean | 95% CI | SD |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Study set | 850 | 799 | 94.00% of 850 | 150 | 1.8 | 1.8 to 1.9 | 0.9 |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | |
| CXM | 232 | 218 | 93.97% of 232 | 42 | 2.0 | 1.8 to 2.1 | 1.0 |
| ITO | 244 | 231 | 94.67% of 244 | 40 | 1.8 | 1.7 to 1.9 | 0.9 |
| BPO | 209 | 192 | 91.87% of 209 | 37 | 1.8 | 1.6 to 1.9 | 0.9 |
| KPO | 165 | 158 | 95.76% of 165 | 31 | 1.8 | 1.7 to 2.0 | 1.0 |
| Institution type | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | 132 | 127 | 96.21% of 132 | 24 | 1.7 | 1.6 to 1.9 | 0.9 |
| Wealth management and private banking | 140 | 133 | 95.00% of 140 | 23 | 1.8 | 1.7 to 2.0 | 0.9 |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | 105 | 100 | 95.24% of 105 | 19 | 1.9 | 1.7 to 2.0 | 0.9 |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | 78 | 71 | 91.03% of 78 | 14 | 1.8 | 1.6 to 2.0 | 0.9 |
| Commercial and business banking | 82 | 74 | 90.24% of 82 | 13 | 1.8 | 1.6 to 2.1 | 1.1 |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | 71 | 65 | 91.55% of 71 | 13 | 1.8 | 1.5 to 2.0 | 1.0 |
| Credit card and payments issuing | 73 | 68 | 93.15% of 73 | 12 | 1.9 | 1.6 to 2.1 | 1.0 |
| Retail and consumer banking | 73 | 73 | 100.00% of 73 | 12 | 1.8 | 1.6 to 2.0 | 0.8 |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | 57 | 52 | 91.23% of 57 | 11 | 2.1 | 1.8 to 2.3 | 1.0 |
| Private equity and private capital | 39 | 36 | 92.31% of 39 | 9 | 1.9 | 1.6 to 2.3 | 1.1 |
| Process family | | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | 248 | 230 | 92.74% of 248 | 47 | 1.9 | 1.8 to 2.0 | 1.0 |
| Technology engineering and operations | 204 | 196 | 96.08% of 204 | 35 | 1.9 | 1.7 to 2.0 | 1.0 |
| Client servicing and communications | 94 | 85 | 90.43% of 94 | 16 | 1.7 | 1.5 to 1.9 | 0.9 |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | 80 | 74 | 92.50% of 80 | 15 | 1.8 | 1.6 to 2.0 | 0.9 |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 73 | 71 | 97.26% of 73 | 12 | 1.9 | 1.7 to 2.1 | 1.0 |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | 57 | 55 | 96.49% of 57 | 9 | 1.7 | 1.5 to 2.0 | 0.8 |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | 51 | 47 | 92.16% of 51 | 9 | 1.8 | 1.5 to 2.0 | 0.9 |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | 43 | 41 | 95.35% of 43 | 7 | 1.8 | 1.5 to 2.1 | 1.0 |
| Class of work | | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | 451 | 424 | 94.01% of 451 | 76 | 1.8 | 1.7 to 1.9 | 0.9 |
| Corporate Functional | 399 | 375 | 93.98% of 399 | 74 | 1.9 | 1.8 to 2.0 | 1.0 |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | 175 | 163 | 93.14% of 175 | 31 | 1.9 | 1.8 to 2.1 | 1.0 |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 250 | 234 | 93.60% of 250 | 43 | 1.9 | 1.8 to 2.0 | 0.9 |
| Active, Production | 103 | 102 | 99.03% of 103 | 20 | 1.7 | 1.5 to 1.8 | 0.8 |
| Canceled | 322 | 300 | 93.17% of 322 | 56 | 1.8 | 1.7 to 1.9 | 0.9 |
| Respondent role | | | | | | | |
| Individual Contributor | 667 | 617 | 92.50% of 667 | 150 | 1.7 | 1.6 to 1.7 | 0.8 |
| Engagement Manager | 150 | 150 | 100.00% of 150 | 150 | 2.5 | 2.3 to 2.7 | 1.2 |
| Portfolio Director | 31 | 31 | 100.00% of 31 | 31 | 2.4 | 1.9 to 2.8 | 1.2 |
| Customer Management Executive | 2 | 1 | 1 of 2 | 1 | ‡ | | |
| Vendor type | | | | | | | |
| IT services major | 316 | 297 | 93.99% of 316 | 59 | 1.8 | 1.7 to 1.9 | 0.9 |
| BPO specialist | 198 | 190 | 95.96% of 198 | 37 | 1.9 | 1.7 to 2.0 | 1.1 |
| Consulting firm | 117 | 111 | 94.87% of 117 | 23 | 1.8 | 1.6 to 2.0 | 1.0 |
| Boutique or specialist provider | 87 | 77 | 88.51% of 87 | 17 | 1.8 | 1.6 to 2.1 | 1.0 |
| Pure-play agentic AI firm | 75 | 73 | 97.33% of 75 | 14 | 1.9 | 1.7 to 2.2 | 1.0 |
| Not reported, recovered by engagement | 57 | 51 | 89.47% of 57 | 42 | 1.6 | 1.4 to 1.9 | 0.8 |

Note: ‡ Base under 10. No statistic is reported.Table 6b. Descriptive statistics by segment, part 2 of 2Table

| Segment | Min | Q1 | Median | Q3 | Max | Distressed n | Distressed % |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Study set | 1.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 5.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | |
| CXM | 1.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| ITO | 1.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 5.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| BPO | 1.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 5.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| KPO | 1.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 5.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Institution type | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 5.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Wealth management and private banking | 1.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 5.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | 1.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 5.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | 1.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 4.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Commercial and business banking | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 4.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Credit card and payments issuing | 1.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Retail and consumer banking | 1.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 4.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | 1.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Private equity and private capital | 1.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Process family | | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | 1.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 5.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Technology engineering and operations | 1.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Client servicing and communications | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 5.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | 1.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 4.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 1.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | 1.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 4.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | 1.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 4.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 4.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Class of work | | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | 1.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 5.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Corporate Functional | 1.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | 1.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 1.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 5.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Active, Production | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 4.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Canceled | 1.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 5.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Respondent role | | | | | | | |
| Individual Contributor | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Engagement Manager | 1.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Portfolio Director | 1.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Customer Management Executive | ‡ n = 1 | | | | | | |
| Vendor type | | | | | | | |
| IT services major | 1.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 5.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| BPO specialist | 1.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Consulting firm | 1.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 5.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Boutique or specialist provider | 1.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 5.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Pure-play agentic AI firm | 1.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Not reported, recovered by engagement | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 4.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |

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 family | Welch F | df | p | Holm p | Omega squared | 90% CI |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Outsourcing model | 2.15 | 3, 77.5 | 0.101 | 0.405 | 0.021 | 0.000 to 0.089 |
| Institution type | 0.61 | 8, 49.3 | 0.764 | 1.000 | −0.017 | 0.000 to 0.047 |
| Process family | 1.56 | 4, 38.4 | 0.205 | 0.615 | 0.021 | 0.000 to 0.102 |
| Class of work | 6.05 | 1, 145.3 | 0.015 | 0.090 | 0.033 | 0.004 to 0.102 |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | 2.66 | 3, 64.0 | 0.055 | 0.277 | 0.028 | 0.000 to 0.099 |
| Respondent role | 32.31 | 2, 70.7 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.117 | 0.085 to 0.154 |
| Vendor type | 0.74 | 5, 228.4 | 0.595 | 1.000 | −0.002 | 0.000 to 0.008 |

Table 7b. Tests of difference between segments, part 2 of 2Table

| Segment family | Kruskal-Wallis H | p | Distressed chi-square | df | p | Cramer's V | Levels excluded |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Outsourcing model | 6.40 | 0.094 | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | None |
| Institution type | 6.91 | 0.546 | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Private equity and private capital, n = 9 |
| Process family | 6.47 | 0.167 | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Credit, underwriting and suitability, n = 9, Regulatory, audit, tax and legal, n = 9, Financial crime and client onboarding, n = 7 |
| Class of work | 5.21 | 0.022 | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | None |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | 8.04 | 0.045 | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | None |
| Respondent role | 62.44 | < 0.001 | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Customer Management Executive, n = 1 |
| Vendor type | 2.61 | 0.759 | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | None |

Segment families recorded at engagement level were tested on engagement means, and none differed after Holm correction. Respondent role and vendor type were tested on respondents. The count differed by role (Welch F 32.31, Holm p < 0.001, omega squared 0.117): individual contributors had a mean of 1.7 (n = 617), engagement managers 2.5 (n = 150) and portfolio directors 2.4 (n = 31). Vendor type showed no difference after Holm correction.

## 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 described 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

| Segment | Engagements | Canceled | Cancellation rate | Point-biserial r | 95% CI | p | Holm p |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Study set | 150 | 56 | 37.33% of 150 | −0.05 | −0.21 to 0.11 | 0.553 | 1.000 |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | |
| CXM | 42 | 15 | 35.71% of 42 | 0.13 | −0.19 to 0.41 | 0.427 | 1.000 |
| ITO | 40 | 15 | 37.50% of 40 | −0.01 | −0.32 to 0.31 | 0.973 | 1.000 |
| BPO | 37 | 14 | 37.84% of 37 | −0.35 | −0.61 to −0.03 | 0.033 | 0.634 |
| KPO | 31 | 12 | 38.71% of 31 | 0.07 | −0.29 to 0.41 | 0.709 | 1.000 |
| Institution type | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | 24 | 13 | 54.17% of 24 | 0.20 | † | 0.355 | 1.000 |
| Wealth management and private banking | 23 | 8 | 34.78% of 23 | −0.09 | † | 0.690 | 1.000 |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | 19 | 9 | 47.37% of 19 | 0.03 | † | 0.910 | 1.000 |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | 14 | 5 | 35.71% of 14 | −0.08 | † | 0.798 | 1.000 |
| Commercial and business banking | 13 | 4 | 30.77% of 13 | −0.14 | † | 0.649 | 1.000 |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | 13 | 3 | 23.08% of 13 | 0.21 | † | 0.496 | 1.000 |
| Credit card and payments issuing | 12 | 5 | 41.67% of 12 | −0.68 | † | 0.016 | 0.334 |
| Retail and consumer banking | 12 | 4 | 33.33% of 12 | −0.31 | † | 0.330 | 1.000 |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | 11 | 3 | 27.27% of 11 | −0.22 | † | 0.519 | 1.000 |
| Private equity and private capital | 9 | 2 | 2 of 9 | ‡ | | | |
| Process family | | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | 47 | 19 | 40.43% of 47 | −0.12 | −0.39 to 0.17 | 0.428 | 1.000 |
| Technology engineering and operations | 35 | 10 | 28.57% of 35 | 0.24 | −0.10 to 0.53 | 0.168 | 1.000 |
| Client servicing and communications | 16 | 9 | 56.25% of 16 | −0.08 | † | 0.776 | 1.000 |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | 15 | 8 | 53.33% of 15 | 0.58 | † | 0.024 | 0.476 |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 12 | 2 | 16.67% of 12 | −0.56 | † | 0.056 | 1.000 |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | 9 | 1 | 1 of 9 | ‡ | | | |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | 9 | 4 | 4 of 9 | ‡ | | | |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | 7 | 3 | 3 of 7 | ‡ | | | |
| Class of work | | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | 76 | 30 | 39.47% of 76 | 0.00 | −0.23 to 0.22 | 0.974 | 1.000 |
| Corporate Functional | 74 | 26 | 35.14% of 74 | −0.08 | −0.30 to 0.16 | 0.521 | 1.000 |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | 31 | 0 | 0.00% of 31 | a | | | |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 43 | 0 | 0.00% of 43 | a | | | |
| Active, Production | 20 | 0 | 0.00% of 20 | a | | | |
| Canceled | 56 | 56 | 100.00% of 56 | a | | | |

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

| Segment | Odds ratio per point | 95% CI | AUC | Rate, distressed engagements | Rate, other engagements | Fisher p | TOST p |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Study set | 0.77 | 0.32 to 1.83 | 0.53 | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | < 0.001 |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | |
| CXM | 2.18 | 0.33 to 14.43 | 0.57 | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | 0.127 |
| ITO | 0.97 | 0.14 to 6.48 | 0.52 | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | 0.032 |
| BPO | 0.13 | 0.02 to 0.95 | 0.71 | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | 0.629 |
| KPO | 1.40 | 0.26 to 7.66 | 0.56 | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | 0.102 |
| Institution type | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | 3.65 | † n = 24 | 0.59 | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | 0.308 |
| Wealth management and private banking | 0.61 | † n = 23 | 0.54 | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | 0.161 |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | 1.15 | † n = 19 | 0.51 | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | 0.130 |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | 0.63 | † n = 14 | 0.58 | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | 0.219 |
| Commercial and business banking | 0.46 | † n = 13 | 0.63 | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | 0.297 |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | 4.97 | † n = 13 | 0.65 | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | 0.377 |
| Credit card and payments issuing | 0.00 | † n = 12 | 0.91 | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | 0.937 |
| Retail and consumer banking | 0.05 | † n = 12 | 0.59 | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | 0.510 |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | 0.33 | † n = 11 | 0.52 | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | 0.402 |
| Private equity and private capital | ‡ n = 9 | | | | | | |
| Process family | | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | 0.53 | 0.12 to 2.45 | 0.56 | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | 0.103 |
| Technology engineering and operations | 4.82 | 0.51 to 45.49 | 0.63 | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | 0.354 |
| Client servicing and communications | 0.66 | † n = 16 | 0.56 | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | 0.201 |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | 121.35 | † n = 15 | 0.85 | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | 0.888 |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 0.00 | † n = 12 | 0.93 | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | 0.838 |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | ‡ n = 9 | | | | | | |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | ‡ n = 9 | | | | | | |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | ‡ n = 7 | | | | | | |
| Class of work | | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | 0.98 | 0.27 to 3.58 | 0.51 | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | 0.005 |
| Corporate Functional | 0.67 | 0.20 to 2.25 | 0.54 | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | 0.024 |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | a | | | | | | |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | a | | | | | | |
| Active, Production | a | | | | | | |
| Canceled | a | | | | | | |

Note: † Base under 30. No interval is reported. ‡ Base under 10. No statistic is reported. a Not tested: no variation in cancellation.

Across the study set, the engagement mean of the count was not associated with cancellation (r = −0.05, 95% CI −0.21 to 0.11, Holm p = 1.000, n = 150 engagements). The association held after Holm correction in none 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

| Segment | Active engagements | Clean r | 95% CI | p | Holm p | Spearman rho | p |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Study set | 94 | −0.02 | −0.22 to 0.18 | 0.840 | 1.000 | −0.07 | 0.489 |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | |
| CXM | 27 | −0.36 | † | 0.063 | 1.000 | −0.36 | 0.065 |
| ITO | 25 | −0.01 | † | 0.951 | 1.000 | −0.08 | 0.691 |
| BPO | 23 | −0.02 | † | 0.938 | 1.000 | −0.04 | 0.845 |
| KPO | 19 | 0.24 | † | 0.324 | 1.000 | 0.20 | 0.416 |
| Institution type | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | 11 | 0.19 | † | 0.582 | 1.000 | 0.20 | 0.563 |
| Wealth management and private banking | 15 | −0.19 | † | 0.499 | 1.000 | −0.21 | 0.462 |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | 10 | 0.21 | † | 0.551 | 1.000 | 0.36 | 0.311 |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | 9 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Commercial and business banking | 9 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | 10 | −0.08 | † | 0.817 | 1.000 | −0.20 | 0.586 |
| 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 | 0.33 | † | 0.088 | 1.000 | 0.27 | 0.162 |
| Technology engineering and operations | 25 | −0.03 | † | 0.893 | 1.000 | −0.07 | 0.729 |
| Client servicing and communications | 7 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | 7 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 10 | −0.37 | † | 0.288 | 1.000 | −0.11 | 0.763 |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | 8 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | 5 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | 4 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Class of work | | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | 46 | −0.04 | −0.33 to 0.25 | 0.786 | 1.000 | −0.11 | 0.474 |
| Corporate Functional | 48 | −0.01 | −0.30 to 0.27 | 0.931 | 1.000 | −0.04 | 0.809 |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | 31 | −0.31 | −0.60 to 0.05 | 0.086 | 1.000 | −0.30 | 0.097 |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 43 | 0.23 | −0.08 to 0.49 | 0.147 | 1.000 | 0.17 | 0.277 |
| Active, Production | 20 | −0.04 | † | 0.878 | 1.000 | −0.03 | 0.885 |
| Canceled | 0 | a | | | | | |

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

| Segment | Slope, points per rating point | 95% CI | R squared | TOST p | All engagements | Descriptive r | p |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Study set | −0.66 | −7.11 to 5.79 | 0.00 | 0.003 | 150 | 0.04 | 0.618 |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | |
| CXM | −14.85 | † n = 27 | 0.13 | 0.635 | 42 | −0.19 | 0.220 |
| ITO | −0.45 | † n = 25 | 0.00 | 0.082 | 40 | 0.03 | 0.878 |
| BPO | −0.44 | † n = 23 | 0.00 | 0.096 | 37 | 0.32 | 0.054 |
| KPO | 6.26 | † n = 19 | 0.06 | 0.397 | 31 | 0.01 | 0.937 |
| Institution type | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | 6.62 | † n = 11 | 0.04 | 0.367 | 24 | −0.14 | 0.524 |
| Wealth management and private banking | −4.30 | † n = 15 | 0.04 | 0.342 | 23 | 0.04 | 0.841 |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | 5.99 | † n = 10 | 0.05 | 0.404 | 19 | 0.03 | 0.917 |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | ‡ n = 9 | | | | | | |
| Commercial and business banking | ‡ n = 9 | | | | | | |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | −4.05 | † n = 10 | 0.01 | 0.276 | 13 | −0.22 | 0.462 |
| 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 functions | 10.59 | † n = 28 | 0.11 | 0.563 | 47 | 0.19 | 0.210 |
| Technology engineering and operations | −1.02 | † n = 25 | 0.00 | 0.094 | 35 | −0.23 | 0.187 |
| Client servicing and communications | ‡ n = 7 | | | | | | |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | ‡ n = 7 | | | | | | |
| Payments, cards and disputes | −10.59 | † n = 10 | 0.14 | 0.587 | 12 | 0.38 | 0.220 |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | ‡ n = 8 | | | | | | |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | ‡ n = 5 | | | | | | |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | ‡ n = 4 | | | | | | |
| Class of work | | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | −1.55 | −12.99 to 9.90 | 0.00 | 0.039 | 76 | −0.01 | 0.945 |
| Corporate Functional | −0.34 | −8.30 to 7.61 | 0.00 | 0.023 | 74 | 0.07 | 0.548 |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | −7.96 | −17.11 to 1.20 | 0.10 | 0.531 | 31 | −0.31 | 0.086 |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 8.11 | −2.97 to 19.19 | 0.05 | 0.305 | 43 | 0.23 | 0.147 |
| Active, Production | −1.26 | † | 0.00 | 0.130 | 20 | −0.04 | 0.878 |
| Canceled | a | | | | | | |

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, the engagement mean of the count was not associated with customer satisfaction (r = −0.02, 95% CI −0.22 to 0.18, Holm p = 1.000, n = 94 engagements). The association held after Holm correction in none 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 count is not a rated indicator and does not enter the mean.

Table 10a. Association with the engagement indicator mean by segment, part 1 of 2Table

| Segment | Engagements | Leave-one-out r | 95% CI | p | Holm p | Spearman rho | p |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Study set | 150 | 0.07 | −0.09 to 0.23 | 0.385 | 1.000 | 0.08 | 0.327 |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | |
| CXM | 42 | −0.16 | −0.44 to 0.15 | 0.318 | 1.000 | −0.10 | 0.517 |
| ITO | 40 | 0.11 | −0.20 to 0.41 | 0.484 | 1.000 | 0.07 | 0.689 |
| BPO | 37 | 0.31 | −0.02 to 0.57 | 0.066 | 1.000 | 0.30 | 0.074 |
| KPO | 31 | −0.01 | −0.37 to 0.34 | 0.942 | 1.000 | −0.02 | 0.902 |
| Institution type | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | 24 | −0.22 | † | 0.296 | 1.000 | −0.23 | 0.287 |
| Wealth management and private banking | 23 | −0.01 | † | 0.956 | 1.000 | 0.06 | 0.792 |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | 19 | −0.01 | † | 0.975 | 1.000 | 0.05 | 0.832 |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | 14 | 0.10 | † | 0.746 | 1.000 | 0.13 | 0.662 |
| Commercial and business banking | 13 | 0.05 | † | 0.867 | 1.000 | 0.28 | 0.360 |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | 13 | −0.02 | † | 0.945 | 1.000 | −0.14 | 0.643 |
| Credit card and payments issuing | 12 | 0.84 | † | < 0.001 | 0.015 | 0.78 | 0.003 |
| Retail and consumer banking | 12 | 0.08 | † | 0.798 | 1.000 | −0.01 | 0.965 |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | 11 | 0.26 | † | 0.444 | 1.000 | 0.20 | 0.554 |
| Private equity and private capital | 9 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Process family | | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | 47 | 0.24 | −0.05 to 0.50 | 0.100 | 1.000 | 0.22 | 0.139 |
| Technology engineering and operations | 35 | −0.05 | −0.37 to 0.29 | 0.789 | 1.000 | −0.10 | 0.561 |
| Client servicing and communications | 16 | 0.01 | † | 0.962 | 1.000 | 0.04 | 0.875 |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | 15 | −0.18 | † | 0.519 | 1.000 | −0.19 | 0.499 |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 12 | 0.23 | † | 0.477 | 1.000 | 0.31 | 0.335 |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | 9 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | 9 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | 7 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Class of work | | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | 76 | 0.00 | −0.22 to 0.23 | 0.968 | 1.000 | 0.04 | 0.755 |
| Corporate Functional | 74 | 0.13 | −0.10 to 0.35 | 0.272 | 1.000 | 0.13 | 0.281 |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | 31 | −0.20 | −0.52 to 0.16 | 0.269 | 1.000 | −0.17 | 0.352 |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 43 | 0.37 | 0.08 to 0.61 | 0.014 | 0.327 | 0.28 | 0.066 |
| Active, Production | 20 | −0.27 | † | 0.253 | 1.000 | −0.30 | 0.193 |
| Canceled | 56 | 0.10 | −0.17 to 0.35 | 0.458 | 1.000 | 0.05 | 0.708 |

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

| Segment | r with indicator included | Change in r | Slope | 95% CI | R squared | TOST p | Equivalent |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Study set | Not a component | | 0.27 | −0.35 to 0.90 | 0.01 | 0.002 | Yes |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | |
| CXM | Not a component | | −0.75 | −2.24 to 0.75 | 0.02 | 0.174 | No |
| ITO | Not a component | | 0.43 | −0.79 to 1.65 | 0.01 | 0.118 | No |
| BPO | Not a component | | 0.99 | −0.07 to 2.06 | 0.09 | 0.514 | No |
| KPO | Not a component | | −0.05 | −1.49 to 1.39 | 0.00 | 0.059 | No |
| Institution type | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | Not a component | | −1.07 | † n = 24 | 0.05 | 0.352 | No |
| Wealth management and private banking | Not a component | | −0.05 | † n = 23 | 0.00 | 0.092 | No |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | Not a component | | −0.02 | † n = 19 | 0.00 | 0.114 | No |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | Not a component | | 0.41 | † n = 14 | 0.01 | 0.239 | No |
| Commercial and business banking | Not a component | | 0.18 | † n = 13 | 0.00 | 0.208 | No |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | Not a component | | −0.10 | † n = 13 | 0.00 | 0.181 | No |
| Credit card and payments issuing | Not a component | | 2.44 | † n = 12 | 0.71 | 0.997 | No |
| Retail and consumer banking | Not a component | | 0.54 | † n = 12 | 0.01 | 0.249 | No |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | Not a component | | 0.92 | † n = 11 | 0.07 | 0.449 | No |
| Private equity and private capital | ‡ n = 9 | | | | | | |
| Process family | | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | Not a component | | 0.99 | −0.20 to 2.17 | 0.06 | 0.341 | No |
| Technology engineering and operations | Not a component | | −0.19 | −1.59 to 1.22 | 0.00 | 0.069 | No |
| Client servicing and communications | Not a component | | 0.05 | † n = 16 | 0.00 | 0.142 | No |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | Not a component | | −0.62 | † n = 15 | 0.03 | 0.330 | No |
| Payments, cards and disputes | Not a component | | 0.67 | † n = 12 | 0.05 | 0.407 | No |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | ‡ n = 9 | | | | | | |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | ‡ n = 9 | | | | | | |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | ‡ n = 7 | | | | | | |
| Class of work | | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | Not a component | | 0.02 | −0.96 to 0.99 | 0.00 | 0.005 | Yes |
| Corporate Functional | Not a component | | 0.47 | −0.38 to 1.33 | 0.02 | 0.065 | No |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | Not a component | | −0.57 | −1.61 to 0.47 | 0.04 | 0.295 | No |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | Not a component | | 1.28 | 0.28 to 2.28 | 0.14 | 0.700 | No |
| Active, Production | Not a component | | −1.09 | † n = 20 | 0.07 | 0.444 | No |
| Canceled | Not a component | | 0.16 | −0.26 to 0.57 | 0.01 | 0.065 | No |

Note: † Base under 30. No interval is reported. ‡ Base under 10. No statistic is reported.

The engagement mean of the count was not associated with the engagement indicator mean (r = 0.07, 95% CI −0.09 to 0.23, Holm p = 1.000, n = 150 engagements). The association held after Holm correction in one of the 24 segment levels tested, the credit card and payments issuing engagements (r = 0.84, Holm p = 0.015, n = 12 engagements), a base under 30 among many tests. At respondent level, with standard errors clustered by engagement, respondents with more engagements behind them gave slightly higher ratings of their own (r = 0.08, cluster bootstrap 95% CI 0.01 to 0.14, p = 0.019, n = 799 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. 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

| Segment | Respondents | r | 95% CI | Cluster bootstrap 95% CI | p | Holm p |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Study set | 751 | −0.03 | −0.10 to 0.04 | −0.10 to 0.04 | 0.395 | 1.000 |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | |
| CXM | 202 | 0.04 | −0.10 to 0.18 | −0.07 to 0.16 | 0.538 | 1.000 |
| ITO | 223 | −0.02 | −0.15 to 0.11 | −0.14 to 0.09 | 0.722 | 1.000 |
| BPO | 179 | −0.17 | −0.31 to −0.02 | −0.31 to −0.02 | 0.025 | 0.910 |
| KPO | 147 | 0.04 | −0.12 to 0.20 | −0.12 to 0.20 | 0.637 | 1.000 |
| Institution type | | | | | | |
| Asset management | 117 | 0.09 | −0.10 to 0.26 | −0.06 to 0.22 | 0.350 | 1.000 |
| Wealth management and private banking | 126 | −0.02 | −0.20 to 0.15 | −0.17 to 0.15 | 0.797 | 1.000 |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | 94 | −0.07 | −0.27 to 0.13 | −0.28 to 0.14 | 0.475 | 1.000 |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | 66 | 0.03 | −0.22 to 0.27 | −0.24 to 0.31 | 0.821 | 1.000 |
| Commercial and business banking | 68 | 0.07 | −0.17 to 0.30 | −0.17 to 0.32 | 0.588 | 1.000 |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | 63 | 0.00 | −0.25 to 0.25 | −0.20 to 0.15 | 0.996 | 1.000 |
| Credit card and payments issuing | 65 | −0.37 | −0.56 to −0.14 | −0.55 to −0.16 | 0.002 | 0.090 |
| Retail and consumer banking | 67 | −0.15 | −0.38 to 0.09 | −0.29 to 0.01 | 0.214 | 1.000 |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | 50 | 0.04 | −0.24 to 0.32 | −0.28 to 0.36 | 0.773 | 1.000 |
| Private equity and private capital | 35 | 0.04 | −0.30 to 0.37 | § n = 9 | 0.814 | 1.000 |
| Process family | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | 208 | −0.08 | −0.21 to 0.06 | −0.19 to 0.02 | 0.246 | 1.000 |
| Technology engineering and operations | 188 | −0.01 | −0.15 to 0.14 | −0.11 to 0.10 | 0.929 | 1.000 |
| Client servicing and communications | 81 | 0.05 | −0.17 to 0.27 | −0.16 to 0.24 | 0.647 | 1.000 |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | 70 | 0.23 | 0.00 to 0.44 | 0.01 to 0.47 | 0.053 | 1.000 |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 68 | −0.29 | −0.50 to −0.06 | −0.51 to −0.04 | 0.016 | 0.593 |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | 51 | 0.20 | −0.08 to 0.45 | § n = 9 | 0.170 | 1.000 |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | 45 | 0.03 | −0.26 to 0.32 | § n = 9 | 0.829 | 1.000 |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | 40 | −0.04 | −0.35 to 0.27 | § n = 7 | 0.803 | 1.000 |
| Class of work | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | 399 | −0.01 | −0.11 to 0.09 | −0.12 to 0.10 | 0.886 | 1.000 |
| Corporate Functional | 352 | −0.05 | −0.15 to 0.05 | −0.13 to 0.03 | 0.344 | 1.000 |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | 154 | −0.05 | −0.20 to 0.11 | −0.19 to 0.09 | 0.578 | 1.000 |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 222 | −0.03 | −0.16 to 0.10 | −0.14 to 0.10 | 0.678 | 1.000 |
| Active, Production | 94 | 0.09 | −0.11 to 0.29 | −0.05 to 0.23 | 0.373 | 1.000 |
| Canceled | 281 | −0.06 | −0.18 to 0.05 | −0.18 to 0.05 | 0.292 | 1.000 |
| Respondent role | | | | | | |
| Individual Contributor | 569 | 0.02 | −0.06 to 0.11 | −0.06 to 0.11 | 0.552 | 1.000 |
| Engagement Manager | 150 | −0.11 | −0.27 to 0.05 | −0.27 to 0.04 | 0.174 | 1.000 |
| Portfolio Director | 31 | 0.10 | −0.26 to 0.44 | −0.27 to 0.43 | 0.574 | 1.000 |
| Customer Management Executive | 1 | ‡ | | | | |
| Vendor type | | | | | | |
| IT services major | 284 | −0.07 | −0.18 to 0.05 | −0.17 to 0.03 | 0.264 | 1.000 |
| BPO specialist | 175 | −0.04 | −0.19 to 0.11 | −0.18 to 0.09 | 0.604 | 1.000 |
| Consulting firm | 105 | 0.14 | −0.05 to 0.33 | −0.07 to 0.38 | 0.141 | 1.000 |
| Boutique or specialist provider | 69 | −0.08 | −0.31 to 0.16 | −0.29 to 0.12 | 0.529 | 1.000 |
| Pure-play agentic AI firm | 70 | −0.12 | −0.35 to 0.12 | −0.30 to 0.07 | 0.315 | 1.000 |
| Not reported, recovered by engagement | 48 | 0.05 | −0.24 to 0.33 | −0.27 to 0.33 | 0.727 | 1.000 |

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

| Segment | Spearman rho | p | Share at 7 or above, distressed | Share at 7 or above, other | Engagements | Engagement level r | 95% CI | TOST p |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Study set | −0.03 | 0.472 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 150 | −0.03 | −0.19 to 0.13 | < 0.001 |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | | |
| CXM | 0.03 | 0.633 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 42 | 0.21 | −0.10 to 0.48 | 0.266 |
| ITO | −0.02 | 0.805 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 40 | 0.02 | −0.29 to 0.33 | 0.039 |
| BPO | −0.17 | 0.022 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 37 | −0.21 | −0.50 to 0.12 | 0.291 |
| KPO | 0.11 | 0.204 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 31 | −0.03 | −0.38 to 0.33 | 0.071 |
| Institution type | | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | 0.06 | 0.541 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 24 | 0.15 | † | 0.230 |
| Wealth management and private banking | 0.00 | 1.000 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 23 | −0.03 | † | 0.110 |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | −0.07 | 0.493 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 19 | 0.01 | † | 0.115 |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | 0.03 | 0.815 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 14 | 0.18 | † | 0.330 |
| Commercial and business banking | 0.09 | 0.484 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 13 | 0.19 | † | 0.351 |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | −0.03 | 0.835 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 13 | 0.17 | † | 0.331 |
| Credit card and payments issuing | −0.34 | 0.006 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 12 | −0.80 | † | 0.992 |
| Retail and consumer banking | −0.14 | 0.263 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 12 | −0.47 | † | 0.729 |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | 0.12 | 0.406 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 11 | −0.17 | † | 0.350 |
| Private equity and private capital | 0.07 | 0.685 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 9 | ‡ | ‡ | |
| Process family | | | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | −0.08 | 0.255 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 47 | −0.16 | −0.43 to 0.13 | 0.164 |
| Technology engineering and operations | −0.01 | 0.849 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 35 | 0.17 | −0.17 to 0.48 | 0.215 |
| Client servicing and communications | −0.03 | 0.769 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 16 | 0.02 | † | 0.151 |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | 0.25 | 0.034 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 15 | 0.56 | † | 0.867 |
| Payments, cards and disputes | −0.27 | 0.029 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 12 | −0.39 | † | 0.623 |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | 0.25 | 0.077 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 9 | ‡ | ‡ | |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | 0.01 | 0.924 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 9 | ‡ | ‡ | |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | −0.03 | 0.837 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 7 | ‡ | ‡ | |
| Class of work | | | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | 0.00 | 0.978 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 76 | −0.01 | −0.23 to 0.22 | 0.005 |
| Corporate Functional | −0.06 | 0.285 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 74 | −0.03 | −0.26 to 0.20 | 0.009 |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | −0.03 | 0.722 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 31 | 0.11 | −0.25 to 0.45 | 0.149 |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | −0.01 | 0.907 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 43 | −0.26 | −0.52 to 0.05 | 0.387 |
| Active, Production | 0.10 | 0.356 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 20 | 0.10 | † | 0.200 |
| Canceled | −0.05 | 0.383 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 56 | −0.02 | −0.28 to 0.24 | 0.018 |
| Respondent role | | | | | | | | |
| Individual Contributor | 0.02 | 0.637 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 150 | 0.01 | −0.15 to 0.17 | < 0.001 |
| Engagement Manager | −0.13 | 0.121 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 150 | −0.11 | −0.27 to 0.05 | 0.008 |
| Portfolio Director | 0.04 | 0.832 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 31 | 0.10 | −0.26 to 0.44 | 0.140 |
| Customer Management Executive | ‡ n = 1 | | | | | | | |
| Vendor type | | | | | | | | |
| IT services major | −0.08 | 0.205 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 59 | −0.13 | −0.37 to 0.13 | 0.085 |
| BPO specialist | −0.05 | 0.528 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 37 | 0.00 | −0.32 to 0.33 | 0.037 |
| Consulting firm | 0.26 | 0.008 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 23 | 0.14 | † | 0.230 |
| Boutique or specialist provider | −0.14 | 0.268 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 17 | −0.04 | † | 0.159 |
| Pure-play agentic AI firm | −0.11 | 0.366 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 14 | −0.17 | † | 0.325 |
| Not reported, recovered by engagement | −0.04 | 0.792 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 40 | 0.10 | −0.22 to 0.40 | 0.104 |

Note: † Base under 30. No interval is reported. ‡ Base under 10. No statistic is reported.

The count was not associated with intent to leave (r = −0.03, cluster bootstrap 95% CI −0.10 to 0.04, p = 0.370 with standard errors clustered by engagement, n = 751 respondents), nor was its engagement-level form (r = −0.03, 95% CI −0.19 to 0.13, n = 150 engagements). The association held after Holm correction in none of the 37 segment levels tested.

## Comparison of Associations Across the Four Measures

Table 12. Associations across the four measuresTable

| Measure | Form | Unit | n | r | 95% CI | p | Equivalent to zero | Rank among the four |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Cancellation rate | Descriptive contrast | Engagement | 150 | −0.05 | −0.21 to 0.11 | 0.553 | Yes | 2 |
| Customer satisfaction | Clean estimate | Engagement | 94 | −0.02 | −0.22 to 0.18 | 0.840 | Yes | 4 |
| Engagement indicator mean | Full | Engagement | 150 | 0.07 | −0.09 to 0.23 | 0.385 | Yes | 1 |
| Intent to leave | Respondent level, clustered | Respondent | 751 | −0.03 | −0.10 to 0.04 | 0.370 | Yes | 3 |

Table 13. Pairwise comparison of associationsTable

| Pair compared | Difference in r | Steiger z | p | Holm p | Reading |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Cancellation rate and customer satisfaction | 0.01 | 0.27 | 0.788 | 1.000 | Did not differ |
| Cancellation rate and engagement indicator mean | −0.02 | −0.37 | 0.714 | 1.000 | Did not differ |
| Cancellation rate and intent to leave | 0.02 | 0.34 | 0.737 | 1.000 | Did not differ |
| Customer satisfaction and engagement indicator mean | −0.03 | −0.68 | 0.497 | 1.000 | Did not differ |
| Customer satisfaction and intent to leave | 0.01 | 0.26 | 0.796 | 1.000 | Did not differ |
| Engagement indicator mean and intent to leave | 0.04 | 0.85 | 0.396 | 1.000 | Did not differ |

The four associations were compared in pairs on their engagement-level forms, each oriented so that a higher value is the better outcome, across the 150 engagements with all four measures. After Holm correction, none of the six pairs differed. Every association was weak.

## Clustering and Effective Sample Size

Table 14. Clustering and effective sample sizeTable

| Statistic | Value | Reading |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Clusters (engagements) | 150 | Engagements with one or more answers. |
| Mean respondents per engagement | 5.3 | Answers per engagement, among engagements with one or more answers. |
| ICC(1) | −0.05 | 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 | 799 | Respondents who answered. |
| Effective n | 799 | 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. |

The count did not cluster within engagements (ICC −0.05): respondents on the same engagement typed different values. The design effect was 1.00, and the effective n equaled the 799 answers. Respondent-level tests still used standard errors clustered by engagement.

## Equivalence Tests of Null Results

Table 15. Equivalence tests of null resultsTable

| Measure | n | r | Equivalence bound | TOST p, lower | TOST p, upper | Equivalent to zero | Achieved power | MDE at power 0.80 | Detection floor for this n |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Cancellation rate | 150 | −0.05 | \|r\| < 0.30 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | Yes | 0.96 | 0.23 | 0.23 |
| Customer satisfaction | 94 | −0.02 | \|r\| < 0.30 | 0.003 | < 0.001 | Yes | 0.84 | 0.29 | 0.23 |
| Engagement indicator mean | 150 | 0.07 | \|r\| < 0.30 | < 0.001 | 0.002 | Yes | 0.96 | 0.23 | 0.23 |
| Intent to leave | 751, effective 751 | −0.03 | \|r\| < 0.30 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | Yes | 1.00 | 0.10 | 0.23 |

All four associations were equivalent to zero. No result was inconclusive. The detection floor shown is the study floor at 150 engagements.

## Robustness Checks

Table 16. Robustness checksTable

| Check | Measure | Primary r | Check r | 95% CI | Change | Conclusion holds |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Rank correlation in place of Pearson | Cancellation rate | −0.05 | −0.05 | a | 0.00 | Yes |
| Rank correlation in place of Pearson | Customer satisfaction | −0.02 | −0.07 | a | −0.05 | Yes |
| Rank correlation in place of Pearson | Engagement indicator mean | 0.07 | 0.08 | a | 0.01 | Yes |
| Rank correlation in place of Pearson | Intent to leave | −0.03 | −0.03 | a | 0.00 | Yes |
| Non-answers excluded, then imputed at the engagement mean | Intent to leave | −0.03 | −0.04 | a | −0.01 | Yes |
| Active engagements only | Engagement indicator mean | 0.07 | 0.04 | −0.16 to 0.24 | −0.03 | Yes |
| Active engagements only | Intent to leave | −0.03 | −0.01 | −0.10 to 0.08 | 0.02 | Yes |
| Most influential engagement removed (largest Cook's distance) | Cancellation rate | −0.05 | −0.07 | −0.23 to 0.09 | −0.02 | Yes |
| Most influential engagement removed (largest Cook's distance) | Customer satisfaction | −0.02 | −0.08 | −0.28 to 0.13 | −0.06 | Yes |
| Most influential engagement removed (largest Cook's distance) | Engagement indicator mean | 0.07 | 0.10 | −0.06 to 0.26 | 0.03 | Yes |
| Most influential engagement removed (largest Cook's distance) | Intent to leave | −0.03 | −0.03 | −0.10 to 0.05 | 0.01 | Yes |
| Engagements weighted by respondent count | Cancellation rate | −0.05 | −0.08 | a | −0.03 | Yes |
| Engagements weighted by respondent count | Customer satisfaction | −0.02 | −0.04 | a | −0.02 | Yes |
| Engagements weighted by respondent count | Engagement indicator mean | 0.07 | 0.07 | a | 0.00 | Yes |
| Bootstrap of engagements | Cancellation rate | −0.05 | −0.05 | −0.21 to 0.12 | 0.00 | Yes |
| Bootstrap of engagements | Customer satisfaction | −0.02 | −0.02 | −0.23 to 0.19 | 0.00 | Yes |
| Bootstrap of engagements | Engagement indicator mean | 0.07 | 0.07 | −0.10 to 0.24 | 0.00 | Yes |
| Bootstrap of engagements | Intent to leave | −0.03 | −0.03 | −0.10 to 0.04 | 0.00 | Yes |
| Thin-base segments removed | Cancellation rate | −0.05 | 0.02 | −0.20 to 0.23 | 0.07 | Yes |
| Thin-base segments removed | Customer satisfaction | −0.02 | 0.18 | −0.10 to 0.43 | 0.20 | Yes |
| Thin-base segments removed | Engagement indicator mean | 0.07 | 0.14 | −0.08 to 0.34 | 0.07 | Yes |
| Thin-base segments removed | Intent to leave | −0.03 | −0.05 | −0.14 to 0.05 | −0.02 | Yes |

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.

## 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

| Measure | The indicator, oriented r | Study median, oriented r | Deviation | Fisher z | p | Holm p |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Cancellation rate | 0.05 | 0.60 | −0.55 | −7.77 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Customer satisfaction | 0.04 | 0.72 | −0.68 | −10.49 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Engagement indicator mean | 0.07 | 0.84 | −0.77 | −13.79 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Intent to leave | 0.03 | 0.71 | −0.68 | −10.41 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Spread of deviations | | | 0.22 | | | |
| Verdict | Divergent | | | | | |

Each deviation was computed before rounding and may differ by 0.01 from the difference between the two printed values.

The comparison covered 150 engagements. The indicator departed from the study's typical pattern on all four measures. The typical indicator is a rating with a strong association with each measure, with study medians from 0.60 to 0.84. The count is not a rating, and its associations were weak.

## Co-Occurring Indicators and Themes

The indicator most often present in the same responses was C126, on the maturity of the employer's playbook for taking agentic use cases from concept to governed production, in three responses. The most frequent theme was “Comparison to a prior engagement”, in four responses, followed by “Raised it, nothing came back” in three.

Figure 3. Other indicators and themes in the same written responses (n = 8 responses)ExhibitNote: Labels give counts. The figure shows each indicator and theme among the five most frequent, with every tie at the cut. C126: “Rate the maturity of your employer's playbook for taking agentic use cases from concept to governed production.” C123: “Rate the adequacy of your employer's investment in training its workforce.” C136: “Rate how effectively the customer and vendor jointly manage this engagement now that agents perform part of the work.” C049: “The engagement is meeting delivery dates successfully.” C060: “The training available to me effectively teaches me about these laws, regulations, and similar.” C094: “Rate the quality of the customer's data across the systems this engagement depends on.” C095: “Rate how accessible the customer's data is to this engagement when and where the work requires it.” C105: “Rate the effectiveness of the customer's management of its side of this engagement.” C108: “Rate the customer's ability to provision the system access and identities that AI agents require.” C109: “Rate how quickly the customer responds when this engagement raises issues that need customer action.” C120: “Rate the depth of your employer's knowledge of the financial industry.” C127: “Rate your employer's quality assurance capability for agents whose outputs are not identical every run.” C131: “Rate the depth of your employer's knowledge of agentic AI.” C134: “Rate your employer's overall qualification to deliver elite agentic AI outsourcing services to banks.” C137: “Rate how clearly the two firms have settled who decides what agents may do without human approval.” C138: “Rate how clearly ownership of each workflow step is assigned when agents, vendor staff, and customer staff work in the same process.” C139: “Rate how clearly accountability lands on one firm when an agent's action causes a problem in this engagement.” C145: “Rate how well agent updates made by one firm become visible to the other firm before they take effect.” C148: “Rate how well joint human review capacity keeps up with the volume of output the agents produce.”

## Interpretation of the Data

For most respondents the current engagement was their first or second of its kind, and engagement managers and portfolio directors had worked on more than individual contributors. The count was not associated with cancellation, customer satisfaction, the engagement indicator mean or intent to leave, and each result was equivalent to zero. At respondent level, respondents with more engagements behind them rated the engagement slightly higher, a small association that may reflect role.

The written responses show the use of that experience: respondents with several engagements behind them judged the current one against earlier ones. The written evidence rests on eight responses, a base of anecdote strength.

## 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. Canceled engagements were described after cancellation.

The count is the respondents' typed report and not a record of staffing.

The count differs by role, and the analysis does not adjust for role, so the respondent-level association with the respondents' own ratings may reflect role rather than the count.

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

## Definitions

Table 18. DefinitionsTable

| Term | Definition |
| --- | --- |
| Response scale | A whole number of engagements, as typed by the respondent, including the current engagement. |
| Answering base | Respondents who typed a number. |
| 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 mean. |
| Indicator class | Respondent level: a property of the respondent rather than of the engagement. |
| Failure category | The five failure categories of the Study Taxonomy apply only to the rated indicators. The indicator carries none. |
| Engagement mean of the count | The mean of the answers of an engagement's respondents, used in every engagement-level test. |
| Engagement indicator mean | The mean of an engagement's ratings across the rated indicators. The indicator does not enter it. |
| 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 | 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, and the magnitude its strength. |
| Cluster bootstrap | An interval computed by resampling engagements rather than respondents, so that the answers from one engagement stay together. |
| Clustered test | A test whose standard error allows for the answers of respondents on the same engagement to be alike. |
| Anecdote strength | A base of fewer than 10 written responses. It supports counts and description only. |

## Sources and Provenance

Table 19. Sources and provenanceTable

| Source | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Study data | Study Data.xlsx, Data sheet, column C011, sha256 219eba0457274d04 |
| Statistics engine | compute_statistics.py, sha256 738319eef764602b |
| Statistics record | Computed Statistics.json, record C011, sha256 1ae50a3637fc9370 |
| Computed | October 13, 2026, 04:57 UTC |
| Template | Indicator Template v2, version 2.0 of 10 October 2026 |
| Figures placed by script | 2,459 |
| 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 a97ad6e74627e11e |
| Written-response records | C011.qa.json, sha256 b3ad168a1c7c7fa3. C011.wfacts.json, sha256 b165cdefe05493b3. Hand-written text handcraft/C011.json, sha256 4f54aefd855ef0f1 |