Source: https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-5-c205/
Author: Phil Hatch
Publisher: Akholi

I have altered client processes

Study Data · Part 5 · Indicator Deep-Dive Analysis

# I have altered client processes

Indicator C205 · 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 5 IndicatorsCo-Occurring Indicators and ThemesInterpretation of the DataLimitationsDefinitionsSources and Provenance

## Indicator Specification

Table 1. Indicator specificationTable

| Field | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Indicator code | C205 |
| Question as asked | I have altered client processes |
| Failure category | Not one of the 100 rated indicators |
| Place in the survey | Challenge Deep Dive > 5.6 Alterations > Client Processes |
| Indicator class | Respondent level |
| Indicator type | Yes or no |
| Response scale | Levels: Yes, No |
| Answering base | 841 of 850 respondents gave one of the listed answers. 847 answered, counting I do not know and I prefer to not answer, across 150 of 150 engagements |
| Non-answers | I do not know 0, I prefer to not answer 6, blank 3 |
| Written responses addressing the indicator | 849 responses from 513 respondents on 137 engagements (819 primary, 30 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 | Omega squared, 0 or 1 flag | 140 engagements | 0.106 | < 0.001 |
| Customer satisfaction | Omega squared | 86 engagements | 0.161 | < 0.001 |
| Engagement indicator mean | Omega squared | 140 engagements | 0.330 | < 0.001 |
| Intent to leave | Omega squared | 140 engagements | 0.208 | < 0.001 |

Of the 841 respondents who answered, 490 (58.26%) answered True and 351 (41.74%) answered False. At engagement level, the answer was associated with all four study measures. Engagements whose respondents most often said they had altered the financial institution's processes were canceled more often (50.00% of 94 engagements against 15.22% of 46), and recorded lower customer satisfaction among active engagements, a lower engagement indicator mean and higher intent to leave.

After Holm correction, the share answering True differed by outsourcing model (chi-square 13.21, Holm p = 0.021, Cramer's V 0.31): the share answering True was highest among respondents at vendors of the type “BPO” (69.42%, n = 206 respondents) and lowest among respondents at vendors of the type “CXM” (50.87%, n = 230 respondents). It also differed by engagement status and lifecycle stage (chi-square 17.80, Holm p = 0.003, Cramer's V 0.36): the share answering True was highest among respondents on canceled engagements (73.73%, n = 316 respondents) and lowest among respondents on active engagements in Build-Out (45.14%, n = 175 respondents). It also differed by respondent role (chi-square 265.42, Holm p < 0.001, Cramer's V 0.56): the share answering True was highest among individual contributors (72.66%, n = 662 respondents) and lowest among portfolio directors (0.00%, n = 31 respondents). It also differed by vendor type (chi-square 15.49, Holm p = 0.034, Cramer's V 0.14): the share answering True was highest among respondents at vendors of the type “BPO specialist” (65.82%, n = 196 respondents) and lowest among respondents at vendors of the type “Consulting firm” (51.72%, n = 116 respondents). Institution type, process family and class of work showed no difference.

The 849 written responses came from 513 respondents on 137 engagements, and 841 were negative. The respondents who answered C208, on why they altered the processes, described decisions that no one on the financial institution's side would make in time, change approval built for one change a month, and procedures that were never written down or did not match practice. Those who commented under C210 described the change as routine, made first and recorded later or not at all, and largely out of the financial institution's sight.

## Distribution of Responses

Table 3. Distribution of responses, respondent levelTable

| Answer | Respondents | Share of answered (base 841) | Cumulative share | Engagements with at least one | Share of 150 engagements | Distressed |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Yes | 490 | 58.26% | 58.26% | 132 | 88.00% | Not applicable |
| No | 351 | 41.74% | 100.00% | 141 | 94.00% | Not applicable |
| I prefer to not answer | 6 | Not in base | Not in base | 6 | 4.00% | Not applicable |
| Answered, total | 841 | 100.00% | | 150 | 100.00% | |

Of the 841 respondents who answered, 490 (58.26%) answered True and 351 (41.74%) answered False. The non-answers were I prefer to not answer (6). Each engagement was assigned the answer given by the largest number of its respondents. True was the assigned answer on 94 engagements and False on 46, and 10 engagements were tied and carry no assigned answer.

## Coverage and Origin of Written Responses

Figure 1. Written responses addressing the indicator, by question answered and written score (n = 849 responses)ExhibitNote: Each bar is one survey question. C208 and C210 and C202 and C204 and C214 and C216 are the written-answer questions of the indicator's survey section, so their responses are primary. The responses to every other question are secondary. Segments wide enough to hold a label carry their count. C208 asked: “Why did you alter client processes?” C210 asked: “Comment” C202 asked: “Why did you alter client provided data?” C204 asked: “Comment” C214 asked: “Why did you alter AI outputs?” C216 asked: “Comment” 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 4. Written responses by originTable

| Origin | Responses | Respondents | Engagements | Negative | Strongest negative (−10) | Positive | Mean written score |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Primary | 819 | 505 | 137 | 811 of 819 (99.02%) | 226 of 819 (27.59%) | 7 of 819 (0.85%) | −6.3 |
| Secondary | 30 | 29 | 28 | 30 of 30 (100.00%) | 7 of 30 (23.33%) | 0 of 30 (0.00%) | −6.2 |
| All responses | 849 | 513 | 137 | 841 of 849 (99.06%) | 233 of 849 (27.44%) | 7 of 849 (0.82%) | −6.3 |

The primary responses numbered 819, written in answer to C208, C210, C202, C204, C214 and C216, the written-answer questions of the indicator's survey section. The remaining 30 responses, 3.53% of the total, were secondary and came from 2 other questions. That secondary share ranked 4th from the highest among the 13 Part 5 indicators with 30 or more written responses, against a median of 2.00%. Respondents who wrote both a primary and a secondary response numbered 21. Negative responses made up 99.02% of primary responses (811 of 819) and 100.00% of secondary responses (30 of 30).

The 413 responses to C208 gave the reasons for altering the processes. Across 176 responses, respondents said no one would make or own the decision, so they made it themselves. Change approval appeared in 160: a board or forum that met monthly while the work changed several times a day, sign-off from three approvers who never met (20 responses), or a ticket that took longer than the fix (22). Respondents said the procedure was never written down, or was a slide and not a procedure, in 45 responses, and that the documented steps were not those followed, had not been updated, or differed from person to person in 79. Subject matter experts who were never available or questions that sat unanswered appeared in 68, and silence taken as approval in 13. In 16 responses, respondents said the process assumed a person would notice an error that the agent did not, and in 16 the team had rebuilt the workflow by watching the financial institution's staff.

The 333 responses to C210 described how the changes were handled. Respondents placed them every day, week, cycle or case, or at a stated rate per week, in 169 responses. The change was made first and recorded later, or not at all, in 33, and kept within the team, unreported or unlogged in 69. Respondents said the financial institution was not told, or that they did not know whether it was, in 43, and the team lead or manager appeared in 120, most often as someone who knew. Fourteen responses across the indicator said the financial institution had been told, knew or had asked for the changes.

Responses to C202 and C204 that also addressed the indicator described working around blocked access: a shared or borrowed login, a workaround credential, or access granted by the team itself, in 20 responses across all questions. Two positive responses said changes went through a joint forum or were agreed with the financial institution before they were applied.

## Distribution of Written Sentiment

Figure 2. Distribution of written sentiment (n = 849 responses)ExhibitNote: Column height is the share of the 849 responses. Labels give the count and the share.Table 5. Summary statistics of written sentimentTable

| Statistic | Value | Basis |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Mean written score | −6.3 | 95% CI −6.4 to −6.1, cluster bootstrap by engagement, 10,000 draws, n = 849 responses |
| Median written score | −5.0 | n = 849 responses |
| Negative responses | 841 of 849 (99.06%) | 95% CI 98.37% to 99.64% of 849 responses, cluster bootstrap by engagement |
| Strongest negative responses (−10) | 233 of 849 (27.44%) | Statements of totality, constancy or serious harm |
| Positive responses | 7 of 849 (0.82%) | +5 or +10 |
| Net balance | −98.23 percentage points | Share positive minus share negative, base 849 responses |
| Respondent-level mean | −6.2 | Mean of each respondent's own mean written score, n = 513 respondents |

Of the 849 responses, 841 (99.06%, 95% CI 98.37% to 99.64%) were negative and 233 (27.44%) carried the strongest negative score of −10. Positive responses numbered 7 (0.82%), and 1 was neutral. The mean written score was −6.3 (95% CI −6.4 to −6.1, n = 849 responses), and the median was −5.0.

## Descriptive Statistics by Segment

Table 6. Descriptive statistics by segmentTable

| Segment | Base | Answered | Answer rate | Engagements | Yes, share | No, share |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Study set | 850 | 841 | 98.94% of 850 | 150 | 58.26% | 41.74% |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | |
| CXM | 232 | 230 | 99.14% of 232 | 42 | 50.87% | 49.13% |
| ITO | 244 | 241 | 98.77% of 244 | 40 | 56.85% | 43.15% |
| BPO | 209 | 206 | 98.56% of 209 | 37 | 69.42% | 30.58% |
| KPO | 165 | 164 | 99.39% of 165 | 31 | 56.71% | 43.29% |
| Institution type | | | | | | |
| Asset management | 132 | 131 | 99.24% of 132 | 24 | 51.91% | 48.09% |
| Wealth management and private banking | 140 | 138 | 98.57% of 140 | 23 | 60.87% | 39.13% |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | 105 | 104 | 99.05% of 105 | 19 | 69.23% | 30.77% |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | 78 | 76 | 97.44% of 78 | 14 | 50.00% | 50.00% |
| Commercial and business banking | 82 | 81 | 98.78% of 82 | 13 | 59.26% | 40.74% |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | 71 | 71 | 100.00% of 71 | 13 | 54.93% | 45.07% |
| Credit card and payments issuing | 73 | 73 | 100.00% of 73 | 12 | 54.79% | 45.21% |
| Retail and consumer banking | 73 | 73 | 100.00% of 73 | 12 | 57.53% | 42.47% |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | 57 | 55 | 96.49% of 57 | 11 | 63.64% | 36.36% |
| Private equity and private capital | 39 | 39 | 100.00% of 39 | 9 | 61.54% | 38.46% |
| Process family | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | 248 | 245 | 98.79% of 248 | 47 | 56.73% | 43.27% |
| Technology engineering and operations | 204 | 204 | 100.00% of 204 | 35 | 52.94% | 47.06% |
| Client servicing and communications | 94 | 92 | 97.87% of 94 | 16 | 64.13% | 35.87% |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | 80 | 79 | 98.75% of 80 | 15 | 68.35% | 31.65% |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 73 | 72 | 98.63% of 73 | 12 | 56.94% | 43.06% |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | 57 | 57 | 100.00% of 57 | 9 | 47.37% | 52.63% |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | 51 | 49 | 96.08% of 51 | 9 | 61.22% | 38.78% |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | 43 | 43 | 100.00% of 43 | 7 | 74.42% | 25.58% |
| Class of work | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | 451 | 444 | 98.45% of 451 | 76 | 60.59% | 39.41% |
| Corporate Functional | 399 | 397 | 99.50% of 399 | 74 | 55.67% | 44.33% |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | 175 | 175 | 100.00% of 175 | 31 | 45.14% | 54.86% |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 250 | 247 | 98.80% of 250 | 43 | 53.04% | 46.96% |
| Active, Production | 103 | 103 | 100.00% of 103 | 20 | 45.63% | 54.37% |
| Canceled | 322 | 316 | 98.14% of 322 | 56 | 73.73% | 26.27% |
| Respondent role | | | | | | |
| Individual Contributor | 667 | 662 | 99.25% of 667 | 150 | 72.66% | 27.34% |
| Engagement Manager | 150 | 148 | 98.67% of 150 | 150 | 6.08% | 93.92% |
| Portfolio Director | 31 | 31 | 100.00% of 31 | 31 | 0.00% | 100.00% |
| Customer Management Executive | 2 | 0 | 0 of 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Vendor type | | | | | | |
| IT services major | 316 | 313 | 99.05% of 316 | 59 | 54.63% | 45.37% |
| BPO specialist | 198 | 196 | 98.99% of 198 | 37 | 65.82% | 34.18% |
| Consulting firm | 117 | 116 | 99.15% of 117 | 23 | 51.72% | 48.28% |
| Boutique or specialist provider | 87 | 85 | 97.70% of 87 | 17 | 55.29% | 44.71% |
| Pure-play agentic AI firm | 75 | 75 | 100.00% of 75 | 14 | 54.67% | 45.33% |
| Not reported, recovered by engagement | 57 | 56 | 98.25% of 57 | 47 | 75.00% | 25.00% |

Each share is computed on the respondents who answered in that row. Rows with fewer than 10 respondents report counts only.

## Tests of Difference Between Segments

Table 7. 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 | 13.21 | 3 | 0.004 | 0.021 | 0.31 | chi-square | None |
| Institution type | Engagement | 5.21 | 7 | 0.648 | 1.000 | 0.21 | Monte Carlo, simulated | Credit card and payments issuing, n = 9, Private equity and private capital, n = 9 |
| Process family | Engagement | 2.71 | 4 | 0.620 | 1.000 | 0.15 | Monte Carlo, simulated | Credit, underwriting and suitability, n = 7, Regulatory, audit, tax and legal, n = 8, Financial crime and client onboarding, n = 7 |
| Class of work | Engagement | 1.43 | 1 | 0.232 | 0.697 | 0.10 | chi-square | None |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | Engagement | 17.80 | 3 | < 0.001 | 0.003 | 0.36 | chi-square | None |
| Respondent role | Respondent | 265.42 | 2 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.56 | chi-square | Customer Management Executive, n = 0 |
| Vendor type | Respondent | 15.49 | 5 | 0.008 | 0.034 | 0.14 | chi-square | None |

Segment families recorded at engagement level were tested on engagements, and respondent role and vendor type on respondents. After Holm correction, the share answering True differed by outsourcing model (chi-square 13.21, Holm p = 0.021, Cramer's V 0.31): the share answering True was highest among respondents at vendors of the type “BPO” (69.42%, n = 206 respondents) and lowest among respondents at vendors of the type “CXM” (50.87%, n = 230 respondents). It also differed by engagement status and lifecycle stage (chi-square 17.80, Holm p = 0.003, Cramer's V 0.36): the share answering True was highest among respondents on canceled engagements (73.73%, n = 316 respondents) and lowest among respondents on active engagements in Build-Out (45.14%, n = 175 respondents). It also differed by respondent role (chi-square 265.42, Holm p < 0.001, Cramer's V 0.56): the share answering True was highest among individual contributors (72.66%, n = 662 respondents) and lowest among portfolio directors (0.00%, n = 31 respondents). It also differed by vendor type (chi-square 15.49, Holm p = 0.034, Cramer's V 0.14): the share answering True was highest among respondents at vendors of the type “BPO specialist” (65.82%, n = 196 respondents) and lowest among respondents at vendors of the type “Consulting firm” (51.72%, n = 116 respondents). Institution type, process family and class of work showed no difference.

## 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.Table 8. Written sentiment by segmentTable

| Segment | Responses | Respondents | Engagements | Mean written score | Negative | Strongest negative (−10) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | 139 | 83 | 29 | −5.8 | 137 of 139 (98.56%) | 27 of 139 (19.42%) |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 215 | 137 | 35 | −6.0 | 212 of 215 (98.60%) | 48 of 215 (22.33%) |
| Active, Production | 87 | 53 | 17 | −6.1 | 87 of 87 (100.00%) | 20 of 87 (22.99%) |
| Canceled | 408 | 240 | 56 | −6.6 | 405 of 408 (99.26%) | 138 of 408 (33.82%) |
| Respondent role | | | | | | |
| Individual Contributor | 806 | 482 | 137 | −6.3 | 800 of 806 (99.26%) | 223 of 806 (27.67%) |
| Engagement Manager | 40 | 28 | 28 | −6.3 | 40 of 40 (100.00%) | 10 of 40 (25.00%) |
| Portfolio Director | 3 | 3 | 3 | ‡ | 1 of 3 | 0 of 3 |
| Customer Management Executive | 0 | 0 | 0 | No responses | | |

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

Written sentiment differed by engagement status and lifecycle stage across the 137 engagements with a written response (Kruskal-Wallis H 15.30, df 3, p = 0.002). Of the groups with 10 or more responses, responses from canceled engagements were the most negative (mean −6.6, 408 responses) and responses from active engagements in Build-Out the least negative (mean −5.8, 139 responses).

The role test compared individual contributors and engagement managers, the roles with 30 or more responses. Written sentiment did not differ (Kruskal-Wallis H 0.04, p = 0.838, n = 510 respondents): the mean written score was −6.3 for individual contributors (806 responses) and −6.3 for engagement managers (40 responses). Portfolio directors wrote 3 responses, reported as counts only.

## Association with Cancellation Rate

Cancellation rate is the share of engagements canceled by the study date, measured at engagement level (150 engagements, 56 canceled). Canceled engagements were rated after cancellation. The association is therefore a descriptive contrast and not a forecast of cancellation. Each test compares the engagements by their assigned answer, within the study set and within each segment.

Table 9. Association with cancellation rate by answer levelTable

| Answer level | Engagements | Canceled | Cancellation rate |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Yes | 94 | 47 | 50.00% |
| No | 46 | 7 | 15.22% |
| I prefer to not answer | 0 | No engagements | |

Table 10. 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 | 140 | 15.77 | 1 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.34 | chi-square |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | |
| CXM | 39 | 6.51 | 1 | 0.011 | 0.064 | 0.41 | chi-square |
| ITO | 36 | 2.86 | 1 | 0.142 | 0.299 | 0.28 | Fisher exact |
| BPO | 36 | a | | | | | |
| KPO | 29 | 5.15 | 1 | 0.053 | 0.214 | 0.42 | Fisher exact |
| Institution type | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | 23 | 3.49 | 1 | 0.100 | 0.299 | 0.39 | Fisher exact |
| Wealth management and private banking | 20 | a | | | | | |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | 18 | a | | | | | |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | 13 | a | | | | | |
| Commercial and business banking | 13 | a | | | | | |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | 13 | a | | | | | |
| Credit card and payments issuing | 9 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Retail and consumer banking | 11 | a | | | | | |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | 11 | a | | | | | |
| Private equity and private capital | 9 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Process family | | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | 45 | 6.81 | 1 | 0.009 | 0.064 | 0.39 | chi-square |
| Technology engineering and operations | 30 | 1.16 | 1 | 0.419 | 0.419 | 0.20 | Fisher exact |
| Client servicing and communications | 16 | a | | | | | |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | 15 | a | | | | | |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 12 | a | | | | | |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | 7 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | 8 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | 7 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Class of work | | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | 74 | 5.62 | 1 | 0.018 | 0.089 | 0.28 | chi-square |
| Corporate Functional | 66 | 10.32 | 1 | 0.001 | 0.011 | 0.40 | chi-square |
| 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.

Of the engagements whose respondents most often answered True, 47 of 94 (50.00%) were canceled, against 7 of 46 (15.22%) of those whose respondents most often answered False (chi-square 15.77, p < 0.001, Cramer's V 0.34, n = 140 engagements). The difference reached significance and held after Holm correction in 1 of the 8 segment levels tested.

## Association with Customer Satisfaction

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

Table 11. Association with customer satisfaction by answer levelTable

| Answer level | Engagements | Mean of the measure | SD |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Yes | 47 | 59.9 | 11.2 |
| No | 39 | 69.8 | 10.6 |
| I prefer to not answer | 0 | No engagements | |

Table 12. Association with customer satisfaction, tests across answer levels by segmentTable

| Segment | Engagements | Welch F | df | p | Holm p | Omega squared | 90% CI |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Study set | 86 | 17.72 | 1, 82.4 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.161 | 0.065 to 0.289 |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | |
| CXM | 25 | a | | | | | |
| ITO | 22 | a | | | | | |
| BPO | 22 | a | | | | | |
| KPO | 17 | a | | | | | |
| Institution type | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | 11 | a | | | | | |
| Wealth management and private banking | 12 | a | | | | | |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | 9 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | 8 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Commercial and business banking | 9 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | 10 | a | | | | | |
| Credit card and payments issuing | 5 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Retail and consumer banking | 7 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | 8 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Private equity and private capital | 7 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Process family | | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | 27 | 7.68 | 1, 21.7 | 0.011 | 0.034 | 0.205 | † |
| Technology engineering and operations | 21 | a | | | | | |
| Client servicing and communications | 7 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | 7 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 10 | a | | | | | |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | 6 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | 4 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | 4 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Class of work | | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | 44 | 5.82 | 1, 36.3 | 0.021 | 0.042 | 0.095 | 0.009 to 0.272 |
| Corporate Functional | 42 | 14.53 | 1, 39.9 | < 0.001 | 0.002 | 0.241 | 0.085 to 0.423 |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | 26 | 1.92 | 1, 23.7 | 0.179 | 0.179 | 0.034 | † |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 42 | 11.75 | 1, 37.2 | 0.001 | 0.006 | 0.185 | 0.050 to 0.371 |
| Active, Production | 18 | a | | | | | |
| Canceled | | b | | | | | |

Note: ‡ Base under 10. No statistic is reported. † Base under 30. No interval is reported. a Not tested: fewer than two levels of 10 or more engagements. b Not tested: canceled engagements fall outside the active population.

Among active engagements, customer satisfaction had a mean of 59.9% (n = 47 engagements) where respondents most often answered True and 69.8% (n = 39 engagements) where they most often answered False (Welch F 17.72, p < 0.001, omega squared 0.161, n = 86 engagements). The difference reached significance and held after Holm correction in 4 of the 5 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. The indicator is not a rated indicator and does not enter the mean.

Table 13. Association with the engagement indicator mean by answer levelTable

| Answer level | Engagements | Mean of the measure | SD |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Yes | 94 | 3.4 | 1.2 |
| No | 46 | 5.3 | 1.3 |
| I prefer to not answer | 0 | No engagements | |

Table 14. 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 | 140 | 64.36 | 1, 80.3 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.330 | 0.233 to 0.426 |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | |
| CXM | 39 | 14.95 | 1, 36.6 | < 0.001 | 0.002 | 0.264 | 0.097 to 0.450 |
| ITO | 36 | 17.10 | 1, 15.6 | < 0.001 | 0.003 | 0.354 | 0.163 to 0.533 |
| BPO | 36 | a | | | | | |
| KPO | 29 | 23.65 | 1, 17.8 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.474 | † |
| Institution type | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | 23 | 9.86 | 1, 14.5 | 0.007 | 0.013 | 0.304 | † |
| Wealth management and private banking | 20 | a | | | | | |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | 18 | a | | | | | |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | 13 | a | | | | | |
| Commercial and business banking | 13 | a | | | | | |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | 13 | a | | | | | |
| Credit card and payments issuing | 9 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Retail and consumer banking | 11 | a | | | | | |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | 11 | a | | | | | |
| Private equity and private capital | 9 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Process family | | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | 45 | 26.17 | 1, 31.1 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.380 | 0.206 to 0.536 |
| Technology engineering and operations | 30 | 12.37 | 1, 23.9 | 0.002 | 0.005 | 0.256 | 0.073 to 0.468 |
| Client servicing and communications | 16 | a | | | | | |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | 15 | a | | | | | |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 12 | a | | | | | |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | 7 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | 8 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | 7 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Class of work | | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | 74 | 21.25 | 1, 31.0 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.248 | 0.124 to 0.385 |
| Corporate Functional | 66 | 47.09 | 1, 47.9 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.420 | 0.277 to 0.545 |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | 26 | 8.82 | 1, 24.0 | 0.007 | 0.013 | 0.226 | † |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 42 | 26.57 | 1, 38.9 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.341 | 0.165 to 0.510 |
| Active, Production | 18 | a | | | | | |
| Canceled | 54 | a | | | | | |

Note: † Base under 30. No interval is reported. ‡ Base under 10. No statistic is reported. a Not tested: fewer than two levels of 10 or more engagements.

The engagement indicator mean was 3.4 (n = 94 engagements) on engagements whose respondents most often answered True and 5.3 (n = 46 engagements) on those whose respondents most often answered False (Welch F 64.36, p < 0.001, omega squared 0.330, n = 140 engagements). The difference reached significance and held after Holm correction in 10 of the 10 segment levels tested.

## Association with Intent to Leave

Intent to leave is the answer to C019, “How likely are you to leave your current job in the next 12 months?”, rated 1 to 10 by up to 798 respondents. For the indicator, the comparison uses the mean intent to leave of each engagement.

Table 15. Association with intent to leave by answer levelTable

| Answer level | Engagements | Mean of the measure | SD |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Yes | 94 | 7.6 | 2.1 |
| No | 46 | 5.2 | 2.2 |
| I prefer to not answer | 0 | No engagements | |

Table 16. 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 | 140 | 36.02 | 1, 84.2 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.208 | 0.121 to 0.308 |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | |
| CXM | 39 | 10.01 | 1, 36.6 | 0.003 | 0.022 | 0.188 | 0.048 to 0.381 |
| ITO | 36 | 10.79 | 1, 15.9 | 0.005 | 0.023 | 0.248 | 0.080 to 0.443 |
| BPO | 36 | a | | | | | |
| KPO | 29 | 13.14 | 1, 18.3 | 0.002 | 0.015 | 0.324 | † |
| Institution type | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | 23 | 4.77 | 1, 15.2 | 0.045 | 0.083 | 0.156 | † |
| Wealth management and private banking | 20 | a | | | | | |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | 18 | a | | | | | |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | 13 | a | | | | | |
| Commercial and business banking | 13 | a | | | | | |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | 13 | a | | | | | |
| Credit card and payments issuing | 9 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Retail and consumer banking | 11 | a | | | | | |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | 11 | a | | | | | |
| Private equity and private capital | 9 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Process family | | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | 45 | 20.47 | 1, 29.3 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.329 | 0.160 to 0.494 |
| Technology engineering and operations | 30 | 5.72 | 1, 18.6 | 0.028 | 0.083 | 0.148 | 0.017 to 0.370 |
| Client servicing and communications | 16 | a | | | | | |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | 15 | a | | | | | |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 12 | a | | | | | |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | 7 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | 8 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | 7 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Class of work | | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | 74 | 9.98 | 1, 38.0 | 0.003 | 0.022 | 0.105 | 0.026 to 0.237 |
| Corporate Functional | 66 | 30.50 | 1, 41.2 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.337 | 0.196 to 0.474 |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | 26 | 4.92 | 1, 24.0 | 0.036 | 0.083 | 0.127 | † |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 42 | 7.87 | 1, 36.7 | 0.008 | 0.032 | 0.128 | 0.021 to 0.313 |
| Active, Production | 18 | a | | | | | |
| Canceled | 54 | a | | | | | |

Note: † Base under 30. No interval is reported. ‡ Base under 10. No statistic is reported. a Not tested: fewer than two levels of 10 or more engagements.

The engagement mean of intent to leave was 7.6 (n = 94 engagements) on engagements whose respondents most often answered True and 5.2 (n = 46 engagements) on those whose respondents most often answered False (Welch F 36.02, p < 0.001, omega squared 0.208, n = 140 engagements). The difference reached significance and held after Holm correction in 7 of the 10 segment levels tested.

## Association of Written Sentiment with the Study Measures

Table 17. Written sentiment and the study measuresTable

| Comparison | With a negative response | Without a negative response | Test | Statistic | n | p |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Cancellation rate, engagements | 56 of 137 (40.88%) | 0 of 13 (0.00%) | Fisher exact | | 150 | 0.002 |
| Customer satisfaction, active engagements | 62.23%, n = 81 | 75.69%, n = 13 | Welch t | −6.45 | 94 | < 0.001 |
| Engagement mean written score and cancellation, engagements | | | Point-biserial r | −0.32 | 137 | < 0.001 |
| Respondent mean written score and intent to leave, respondents | | | Spearman rho | −0.23 | 478 | < 0.001 |

Two comparisons set the engagements with at least one negative response against all other engagements. Of the 13 other engagements, 13 had no written response addressing the indicator. These two comparisons therefore do not isolate written sentiment. Of the 137 engagements with a negative response, 56 (40.88%) were canceled, against 0 of the 13 other engagements (0.00%). The difference reached significance (Fisher exact p = 0.002). Customer satisfaction among active engagements differed between the two groups (mean 62.23% on 81 engagements against 75.69% on 13, Welch t −6.45, p < 0.001).

Two correlations test written sentiment directly. Across the 137 engagements with a written response, a more negative engagement mean written score came with cancellation (point-biserial r −0.32, p < 0.001). Across 478 respondents, a more negative respondent mean written score came with higher intent to leave (Spearman rho −0.23, p < 0.001). Of the four comparisons, all reached significance at 0.05.

## Comparison of Associations Across the Four Measures

Table 18. Associations across the four measuresTable

| Measure | Effect size | n | Value | p | Equivalent to zero | Rank among the four |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Cancellation rate | Omega squared, 0 or 1 flag | 140 | 0.106 | < 0.001 | No | 4 |
| Customer satisfaction | Omega squared | 86 | 0.161 | < 0.001 | No | 3 |
| Engagement indicator mean | Omega squared | 140 | 0.330 | < 0.001 | No | 1 |
| Intent to leave | Omega squared | 140 | 0.208 | < 0.001 | No | 2 |

Steiger's z compares two correlations. A categorical indicator yields an effect size across its levels and not a correlation, so the pairs of measures were not compared by test. On omega squared, the association was strongest with the engagement indicator mean (0.330) and weakest with cancellation (0.106).

## Clustering and Effective Sample Size

Table 19. Clustering and effective sample sizeTable

| Statistic | Value | Reading |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Clusters (engagements) | 150 | Engagements with one or more answers. |
| Mean respondents per engagement | 5.6 | Answers per engagement, among engagements with one or more answers. |
| ICC(1) | 0.18 | Share of the variance that lies between engagements. |
| Design effect | 1.85 | One plus the product of the ICC and the mean cluster size less one. |
| Nominal respondent n | 847 | Every answer, with “I do not know” and “I prefer to not answer” counted as levels, as in the plurality rule. |
| Effective n | 458 | Nominal n divided by the design effect. |
| Cluster bootstrap applied | Yes | Applied to every respondent-level interval where the ICC is 0.05 or above. |

Answers clustered within engagements (ICC 0.18). Clustering reduced the 847 respondent answers to the equivalent of about 458 independent answers. Respondent-level intervals therefore used the cluster bootstrap. Respondent-level tests used standard errors that allow for clustering by engagement.

## Equivalence Tests of Null Results

Table 20. 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 | 140 | 0.106 | Omega squared < 0.090 | 0.671 | No | 0.96 | 0.054 |
| Customer satisfaction | 86 | 0.161 | Omega squared < 0.090 | 0.885 | No | 0.82 | 0.085 |
| Engagement indicator mean | 140 | 0.330 | Omega squared < 0.090 | 1.000 | No | 0.96 | 0.054 |
| Intent to leave | 140 | 0.208 | Omega squared < 0.090 | 0.988 | No | 0.96 | 0.054 |

No association was equivalent to zero. Each of the four differed from zero. The equivalence bound is an omega squared of 0.090, the study's threshold for a negligible association expressed as variance explained.

## Robustness Checks

Table 21. Robustness checksTable

| Check | Measure | Primary p | Check p | Check statistic | Conclusion holds |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Kruskal-Wallis in place of Welch F | Customer satisfaction | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 14.88 | Yes |
| Kruskal-Wallis in place of Welch F | Engagement indicator mean | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 43.81 | Yes |
| Kruskal-Wallis in place of Welch F | Intent to leave | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 26.71 | Yes |
| Active engagements only | Engagement indicator mean | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 46.80 | Yes |
| Active engagements only | Intent to leave | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 15.54 | Yes |
| Respondent level, cluster-robust Wald F by engagement | Cancellation rate | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 34.12 | Yes |
| Respondent level, cluster-robust Wald F by engagement | Customer satisfaction | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 42.34 | Yes |
| Respondent level, cluster-robust Wald F by engagement | Engagement indicator mean | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 135.73 | Yes |
| Respondent level, cluster-robust Wald F by engagement | Intent to leave | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 60.68 | Yes |

All nine checks held. A check holds when its test falls on the same side of 0.05 as the primary test. The checks replace Welch's F with a Kruskal-Wallis test, repeat the tests on active engagements alone, and repeat them at respondent level with a Wald F clustered by engagement.

## 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

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

## Comparison of Written Sentiment with Other Part 5 Indicators

Figure 4. Share of negative written responses, Part 5 indicators with 30 or more written responses (n = 13 indicators)ExhibitNote: Each column is one indicator, ordered from the highest share of negative responses. The indicator is the amber column. The dashed line marks the median share, 98.03%.

Among the 13 Part 5 indicators with 30 or more written responses, the indicator's share of negative responses, 99.06%, ranked 4th from the highest, against a median of 98.03%. Its mean written score, −6.3, ranked 7th from the most negative, against a median of −6.3.

## Co-Occurring Indicators and Themes

Figure 5. Other indicators and themes in the same written responses (n = 849 responses)ExhibitNote: Themes carry no score. Labels give the count and the share of the 849 responses. The figure shows each indicator and each theme among the five most frequent of its kind, with every tie at the cut. C109: “Rate how quickly the customer responds when this engagement raises issues that need customer action.” C206: “I discussed the process alteration with internal management” C100: “Rate how completely the customer's processes are mapped and documented to the depth agentic AI requires.” C209: “My greater team regularly alters client processes.” C105: “Rate the effectiveness of the customer's management of its side of this engagement.” Emotional states in the same responses, as counts: resigned 46, calm or fine 29, tired 27, frustrated 25, stressed 10, angry 1.

The indicator most often present in the same responses was C109, “Rate how quickly the customer responds when this engagement raises issues that need customer action.”, in 229 of the 849 responses (26.97%). C206, “I discussed the process alteration with internal management” (167 responses), C100, “Rate how completely the customer's processes are mapped and documented to the depth agentic AI requires.” (138 responses), C209, “My greater team regularly alters client processes.” (103 responses) and C105, “Rate the effectiveness of the customer's management of its side of this engagement.” (94 responses) followed.

The most frequent theme was “Told vendor-side management”, in 154 responses (18.14%). The second was “Occurs every cycle or most days”, in 139 responses.

## Interpretation of the Data

Of the respondents who answered, 58.26% said they had altered the financial institution's processes. Engagements whose respondents most often said so were canceled more often, recorded lower customer satisfaction and a lower engagement indicator mean, and their respondents reported higher intent to leave. Every association held under each of the robustness checks.

The written evidence describes process change as the delivery team's answer to decisions that did not come, approval cycles slower than the work, and procedures that did not exist or did not match practice. The changes were made first, recorded later or not at all, and rarely reported to the financial institution. The associations do not establish that the changes produced the outcomes. The written responses describe the changes as one response to the same gaps in decision rights and change control that the Part 5 ratings record.

## 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. The answer is the respondent's own report of an alteration and not a record of it.

Each engagement carries the answer given by the largest number of its respondents, and tied engagements are excluded from the engagement-level tests.

Shares of written sentiment are shares of responses and not of the study set of respondents. The written score takes five fixed values, so its mean and median are coarse. Responses clustered within engagements (849 responses on 137 engagements). Intervals for written sentiment therefore used a bootstrap by engagement.

The written responses are counted by sets of words stated in each rule. A response that described a reason in other words is not counted, so each count is a floor.

## Definitions

Table 22. DefinitionsTable

| Term | Definition |
| --- | --- |
| Response scale | The answer is True or False to the statement shown in the indicator specification. The indicator is not a rating. No distressed range applies. |
| Answering base | Respondents who answered True or False. |
| 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 report of the respondent's own action. Each engagement also carries the answer given by the largest number of its respondents, for the engagement-level tests. |
| Failure category | The five failure categories of the Study Taxonomy apply only to the rated indicators. The indicator carries none. |
| 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 the state of the indicator as harmful or helpful to the engagement. The magnitude records its strength. A score of −10 marks a statement of totality, constancy or serious harm. |
| Cluster bootstrap | An interval computed by resampling engagements rather than responses, so that the responses from one engagement stay together. |

## Sources and Provenance

Table 23. Sources and provenanceTable

| Source | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Study data | Study Data.xlsx, Data sheet, column C205, sha256 219eba0457274d04 |
| Statistics engine | compute_statistics.py, sha256 738319eef764602b |
| Statistics record | Computed Statistics.json, record C205, sha256 1ae50a3637fc9370 |
| Computed | October 13, 2026, 04:57 UTC |
| Template | Indicator Template v2, version 2.0 of 10 October 2026 |
| Figures placed by script | 1,258 |
| 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 | C205.qa.json, sha256 95b43418b433c264. C205.wfacts.json, sha256 c71dea6c94b6e509. Hand-written text handcraft/C205.json, sha256 2323f099be697e6a |


## Links to related study evidence

- [Part 5](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/part-5-manual-alteration/)
- [Customer satisfaction](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-1-measure-customer-satisfaction/)
- [Engagement indicator mean](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-1-measure-engagement-indicator-mean/)
- [Intent to leave](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-4-c019/)
- [C019](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-4-c019/)
- [C109](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-2-c109/)
- [C206](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-5-c206/)
- [C100](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-2-c100/)
- [C209](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-5-c209/)
- [C105](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-2-c105/)