Source: https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-5-c206/
Author: Phil Hatch
Publisher: Akholi

I discussed the process alteration with internal management

Study Data · Part 5 · Indicator Deep-Dive Analysis

# I discussed the process alteration with internal management

Indicator C206 · 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 | C206 |
| Question as asked | I discussed the process alteration with internal management |
| 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 | 459 of 850 respondents gave one of the listed answers. 472 answered, counting I do not know and I prefer to not answer, across 132 of 150 engagements |
| Non-answers | I do not know 0, I prefer to not answer 13, blank 378 |
| Written responses addressing the indicator | 257 responses from 238 respondents on 109 engagements (255 primary, 2 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 | 123 engagements | 0.049 | 0.008 |
| Customer satisfaction | Not tested: fewer than two levels of 10 or more engagements | | | |
| Engagement indicator mean | Omega squared | 123 engagements | 0.045 | < 0.001 |
| Intent to leave | Omega squared | 123 engagements | 0.055 | < 0.001 |

Of the 459 respondents who answered, 341 (74.29%) answered True and 118 (25.71%) answered False. At engagement level, the answer was associated with cancellation, the engagement indicator mean and intent to leave. Engagements whose respondents most often said they had discussed the process alteration with internal management were canceled less often (35.00% of 100 engagements against 65.22% of 23), recorded a higher engagement indicator mean and had lower intent to leave among their respondents. The association with customer satisfaction was not tested, because fewer than two answers were assigned to at least ten engagements.

The share answering True did not differ by any segment family after Holm correction.

Of the 257 written responses, 225 were positive and 29 negative. The positive responses, nearly all under C210, said the respondent had told the team lead or manager, and some added that the financial institution was not told. Most negative responses came from respondents who had told no one, or no one above them.

## Distribution of Responses

Table 3. Distribution of responses, respondent levelTable

| Answer | Respondents | Share of answered (base 459) | Cumulative share | Engagements with at least one | Share of 150 engagements | Distressed |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Yes | 341 | 74.29% | 74.29% | 121 | 80.67% | Not applicable |
| No | 118 | 25.71% | 100.00% | 61 | 40.67% | Not applicable |
| I prefer to not answer | 13 | Not in base | Not in base | 13 | 8.67% | Not applicable |
| Answered, total | 459 | 100.00% | | 132 | 88.00% | |

Of the 459 respondents who answered, 341 (74.29%) answered True and 118 (25.71%) answered False. The non-answers were I prefer to not answer (13). Each engagement was assigned the answer given by the largest number of its respondents. True was the assigned answer on 100 engagements and False on 23, and 27 engagements were tied or unanswered 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 = 257 responses)ExhibitNote: Each bar is one survey question. C210, C208 and C204 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. C210 asked: “Comment” C208 asked: “Why did you alter client processes?” C204 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 | 255 | 238 | 109 | 29 of 255 (11.37%) | 24 of 255 (9.41%) | 223 of 255 (87.45%) | 4.0 |
| Secondary | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 of 2 | 0 of 2 | 2 of 2 | ‡ |
| All responses | 257 | 238 | 109 | 29 of 257 (11.28%) | 24 of 257 (9.34%) | 225 of 257 (87.55%) | 4.0 |

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

The primary responses numbered 255, written in answer to C210, C208 and C204, the written-answer questions of the indicator's survey section. The remaining 2 responses, 0.78% of the total, were secondary and came from 2 other questions. That secondary share ranked 11th 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 2. Negative responses made up 11.37% of primary responses (29 of 255) and 0 of the 2 secondary responses.

The 222 responses to C210 described how the alteration was handled within the vendor. In 173, the respondent said they told the team lead, manager or team, or that the lead or manager already knew. Respondents placed the alteration at a frequency, such as every cycle, most weeks or seven out of ten, in 122 responses, and said that telling the lead changed nothing at the financial institution in 21.

Across all questions, respondents said the financial institution was not told in 45 responses. Three responses said the financial institution had been told directly or in writing. In 17 of the 29 negative responses, the respondent said they had told no one, or no one above them, of the alteration, and in six the respondent had told the lead or manager and seen nothing change.

## Distribution of Written Sentiment

Figure 2. Distribution of written sentiment (n = 257 responses)ExhibitNote: Column height is the share of the 257 responses. Labels give the count and the share.Table 5. Summary statistics of written sentimentTable

| Statistic | Value | Basis |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Mean written score | 4.0 | 95% CI 3.3 to 4.7, cluster bootstrap by engagement, 10,000 draws, n = 257 responses |
| Median written score | 5.0 | n = 257 responses |
| Negative responses | 29 of 257 (11.28%) | 95% CI 7.11% to 16.14% of 257 responses, cluster bootstrap by engagement |
| Strongest negative responses (−10) | 24 of 257 (9.34%) | Statements of totality, constancy or serious harm |
| Positive responses | 225 of 257 (87.55%) | +5 or +10 |
| Net balance | 76.26 percentage points | Share positive minus share negative, base 257 responses |
| Respondent-level mean | 3.9 | Mean of each respondent's own mean written score, n = 238 respondents |

Of the 257 responses, 29 (11.28%, 95% CI 7.11% to 16.14%) were negative and 24 (9.34%) carried the strongest negative score of −10. Positive responses numbered 225 (87.55%), and 3 were neutral. The mean written score was 4.0 (95% CI 3.3 to 4.7, n = 257 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 | 459 | 54.00% of 850 | 132 | 74.29% | 25.71% |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | |
| CXM | 232 | 104 | 44.83% of 232 | 37 | 71.15% | 28.85% |
| ITO | 244 | 128 | 52.46% of 244 | 33 | 69.53% | 30.47% |
| BPO | 209 | 139 | 66.51% of 209 | 36 | 78.42% | 21.58% |
| KPO | 165 | 88 | 53.33% of 165 | 26 | 78.41% | 21.59% |
| Institution type | | | | | | |
| Asset management | 132 | 60 | 45.45% of 132 | 19 | 73.33% | 26.67% |
| Wealth management and private banking | 140 | 78 | 55.71% of 140 | 19 | 79.49% | 20.51% |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | 105 | 69 | 65.71% of 105 | 19 | 62.32% | 37.68% |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | 78 | 35 | 44.87% of 78 | 12 | 80.00% | 20.00% |
| Commercial and business banking | 82 | 46 | 56.10% of 82 | 11 | 69.57% | 30.43% |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | 71 | 35 | 49.30% of 71 | 11 | 82.86% | 17.14% |
| Credit card and payments issuing | 73 | 38 | 52.05% of 73 | 11 | 65.79% | 34.21% |
| Retail and consumer banking | 73 | 40 | 54.79% of 73 | 12 | 80.00% | 20.00% |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | 57 | 35 | 61.40% of 57 | 10 | 82.86% | 17.14% |
| Private equity and private capital | 39 | 23 | 58.97% of 39 | 8 | 73.91% | 26.09% |
| Process family | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | 248 | 130 | 52.42% of 248 | 40 | 73.85% | 26.15% |
| Technology engineering and operations | 204 | 99 | 48.53% of 204 | 29 | 75.76% | 24.24% |
| Client servicing and communications | 94 | 55 | 58.51% of 94 | 15 | 65.45% | 34.55% |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | 80 | 51 | 63.75% of 80 | 15 | 74.51% | 25.49% |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 73 | 38 | 52.05% of 73 | 11 | 84.21% | 15.79% |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | 57 | 25 | 43.86% of 57 | 7 | 80.00% | 20.00% |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | 51 | 30 | 58.82% of 51 | 8 | 80.00% | 20.00% |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | 43 | 31 | 72.09% of 43 | 7 | 64.52% | 35.48% |
| Class of work | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | 451 | 254 | 56.32% of 451 | 68 | 71.65% | 28.35% |
| Corporate Functional | 399 | 205 | 51.38% of 399 | 64 | 77.56% | 22.44% |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | 175 | 72 | 41.14% of 175 | 27 | 81.94% | 18.06% |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 250 | 127 | 50.80% of 250 | 35 | 84.25% | 15.75% |
| Active, Production | 103 | 45 | 43.69% of 103 | 16 | 82.22% | 17.78% |
| Canceled | 322 | 215 | 66.77% of 322 | 54 | 64.19% | 35.81% |
| Respondent role | | | | | | |
| Individual Contributor | 667 | 450 | 67.47% of 667 | 132 | 73.78% | 26.22% |
| Engagement Manager | 150 | 9 | 6.00% of 150 | 9 | 9 | 0 |
| Portfolio Director | 31 | 0 | 0.00% of 31 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Customer Management Executive | 2 | 0 | 0 of 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Vendor type | | | | | | |
| IT services major | 316 | 163 | 51.58% of 316 | 50 | 69.33% | 30.67% |
| BPO specialist | 198 | 118 | 59.60% of 198 | 36 | 73.73% | 26.27% |
| Consulting firm | 117 | 57 | 48.72% of 117 | 18 | 75.44% | 24.56% |
| Boutique or specialist provider | 87 | 43 | 49.43% of 87 | 15 | 76.74% | 23.26% |
| Pure-play agentic AI firm | 75 | 39 | 52.00% of 75 | 11 | 87.18% | 12.82% |
| Not reported, recovered by engagement | 57 | 39 | 68.42% of 57 | 35 | 79.49% | 20.51% |

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 | 2.12 | 3 | 0.574 | 1.000 | 0.13 | Monte Carlo, simulated | None |
| Institution type | Engagement | 2.49 | 6 | 0.884 | 1.000 | 0.16 | Monte Carlo, simulated | Commercial and business banking, n = 9, Credit card and payments issuing, n = 8, Private equity and private capital, n = 7 |
| Process family | Engagement | 1.88 | 4 | 0.767 | 1.000 | 0.14 | Monte Carlo, simulated | Credit, underwriting and suitability, n = 6, Regulatory, audit, tax and legal, n = 8, Financial crime and client onboarding, n = 7 |
| Class of work | Engagement | 4.31 | 1 | 0.038 | 0.227 | 0.19 | chi-square | None |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | Engagement | 7.23 | 3 | 0.063 | 0.317 | 0.24 | Monte Carlo, simulated | None |
| Respondent role | Respondent | a | | | | | | Engagement Manager, n = 9, Portfolio Director, n = 0, Customer Management Executive, n = 0 |
| Vendor type | Respondent | 6.24 | 5 | 0.283 | 1.000 | 0.12 | chi-square | None |

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

Segment families recorded at engagement level were tested on engagements, and respondent role and vendor type on respondents. The share answering True did not differ by any segment family after Holm correction.

## 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 | 47 | 44 | 24 | 4.5 | 3 of 47 (6.38%) | 3 of 47 (6.38%) |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 84 | 75 | 31 | 4.9 | 4 of 84 (4.76%) | 3 of 84 (3.57%) |
| Active, Production | 22 | 21 | 13 | 5.0 | 1 of 22 (4.55%) | 1 of 22 (4.55%) |
| Canceled | 104 | 98 | 41 | 2.9 | 21 of 104 (20.19%) | 17 of 104 (16.35%) |
| Respondent role | | | | | | |
| Individual Contributor | 249 | 231 | 108 | 4.0 | 29 of 249 (11.65%) | 24 of 249 (9.64%) |
| Engagement Manager | 8 | 7 | 7 | ‡ | 0 of 8 | 0 of 8 |
| Portfolio Director | 0 | 0 | 0 | No responses | | |
| Customer Management Executive | 0 | 0 | 0 | No responses | | |

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

Written sentiment did not differ by engagement status and lifecycle stage across the 109 engagements with a written response (Kruskal-Wallis H 4.98, df 3, p = 0.174). Of the groups with 10 or more responses, responses from canceled engagements were the most negative (mean 2.9, 104 responses) and responses from active engagements in Production the least negative (mean 5.0, 22 responses).

No test across respondent roles was run, because fewer than two roles had 30 or more written responses. Individual contributors wrote 249 responses, engagement managers 8.

## 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 | 100 | 35 | 35.00% |
| No | 23 | 15 | 65.22% |
| 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 | 123 | 7.08 | 1 | 0.008 | 0.016 | 0.24 | chi-square |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | |
| CXM | 34 | a | | | | | |
| ITO | 31 | a | | | | | |
| BPO | 33 | a | | | | | |
| KPO | 25 | a | | | | | |
| Institution type | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | 19 | a | | | | | |
| Wealth management and private banking | 19 | a | | | | | |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | 19 | a | | | | | |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | 11 | a | | | | | |
| Commercial and business banking | 9 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | 10 | a | | | | | |
| Credit card and payments issuing | 8 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Retail and consumer banking | 11 | a | | | | | |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | 10 | a | | | | | |
| Private equity and private capital | 7 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Process family | | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | 34 | a | | | | | |
| Technology engineering and operations | 27 | a | | | | | |
| Client servicing and communications | 15 | a | | | | | |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | 15 | a | | | | | |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 11 | a | | | | | |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | 6 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | 8 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | 7 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Class of work | | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | 67 | 4.92 | 1 | 0.027 | 0.027 | 0.27 | chi-square |
| Corporate Functional | 56 | a | | | | | |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | | b | | | | | |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | | b | | | | | |
| Active, Production | | b | | | | | |
| Canceled | | b | | | | | |

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

Of the engagements whose respondents most often answered True, 35 of 100 (35.00%) were canceled, against 15 of 23 (65.22%) of those whose respondents most often answered False (chi-square 7.08, p = 0.008, Cramer's V 0.24, n = 123 engagements). The difference reached significance and held after Holm correction in 1 of the 1 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 | 65 | 62.9 | 11.1 |
| No | 8 | ‡ | |
| I prefer to not answer | 0 | No engagements | |

Note: ‡ Base under 10. No statistic is reported.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 | 73 | a | | | | | |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | |
| CXM | 20 | a | | | | | |
| ITO | 18 | a | | | | | |
| BPO | 21 | a | | | | | |
| KPO | 14 | a | | | | | |
| Institution type | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | 7 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Wealth management and private banking | 12 | a | | | | | |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | 10 | a | | | | | |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | 6 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Commercial and business banking | 7 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | 7 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Credit card and payments issuing | 5 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Retail and consumer banking | 7 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | 7 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Private equity and private capital | 5 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Process family | | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | 19 | a | | | | | |
| Technology engineering and operations | 18 | a | | | | | |
| Client servicing and communications | 6 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | 7 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 9 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | 5 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | 5 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | 4 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Class of work | | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | 39 | a | | | | | |
| Corporate Functional | 34 | a | | | | | |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | 25 | a | | | | | |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 33 | a | | | | | |
| Active, Production | 15 | a | | | | | |
| Canceled | | b | | | | | |

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

Among active engagements, customer satisfaction was 62.9% (n = 65 engagements) where respondents most often answered True and 54.0% (n = 8 engagements) where respondents most often answered False. No test was computed, because fewer than two answers were assigned to at least ten engagements.

## 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 | 100 | 3.9 | 1.4 |
| No | 23 | 3.1 | 0.8 |
| 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 | 123 | 12.68 | 1, 55.2 | < 0.001 | 0.002 | 0.045 | 0.007 to 0.129 |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | |
| CXM | 34 | a | | | | | |
| ITO | 31 | a | | | | | |
| BPO | 33 | a | | | | | |
| KPO | 25 | a | | | | | |
| Institution type | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | 19 | a | | | | | |
| Wealth management and private banking | 19 | a | | | | | |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | 19 | a | | | | | |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | 11 | a | | | | | |
| Commercial and business banking | 9 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | 10 | a | | | | | |
| Credit card and payments issuing | 8 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Retail and consumer banking | 11 | a | | | | | |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | 10 | a | | | | | |
| Private equity and private capital | 7 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Process family | | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | 34 | a | | | | | |
| Technology engineering and operations | 27 | a | | | | | |
| Client servicing and communications | 15 | a | | | | | |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | 15 | a | | | | | |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 11 | a | | | | | |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | 6 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | 8 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | 7 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Class of work | | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | 67 | 10.14 | 1, 41.5 | 0.003 | 0.005 | 0.081 | 0.013 to 0.217 |
| Corporate Functional | 56 | a | | | | | |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | 25 | a | | | | | |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 33 | a | | | | | |
| Active, Production | 15 | a | | | | | |
| Canceled | 50 | 4.23 | 1, 22.9 | 0.051 | 0.051 | 0.072 | 0.004 to 0.231 |

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

The engagement indicator mean was 3.9 (n = 100 engagements) on engagements whose respondents most often answered True and 3.1 (n = 23 engagements) on those whose respondents most often answered False (Welch F 12.68, p < 0.001, omega squared 0.045, n = 123 engagements). The difference reached significance and held after Holm correction in 1 of the 2 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 | 100 | 6.8 | 2.3 |
| No | 23 | 8.2 | 1.4 |
| 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 | 123 | 14.96 | 1, 53.5 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.055 | 0.011 to 0.143 |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | |
| CXM | 34 | a | | | | | |
| ITO | 31 | a | | | | | |
| BPO | 33 | a | | | | | |
| KPO | 25 | a | | | | | |
| Institution type | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | 19 | a | | | | | |
| Wealth management and private banking | 19 | a | | | | | |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | 19 | a | | | | | |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | 11 | a | | | | | |
| Commercial and business banking | 9 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | 10 | a | | | | | |
| Credit card and payments issuing | 8 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Retail and consumer banking | 11 | a | | | | | |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | 10 | a | | | | | |
| Private equity and private capital | 7 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Process family | | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | 34 | a | | | | | |
| Technology engineering and operations | 27 | a | | | | | |
| Client servicing and communications | 15 | a | | | | | |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | 15 | a | | | | | |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 11 | a | | | | | |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | 6 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | 8 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | 7 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Class of work | | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | 67 | 10.99 | 1, 49.6 | 0.002 | 0.003 | 0.076 | 0.011 to 0.211 |
| Corporate Functional | 56 | a | | | | | |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | 25 | a | | | | | |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 33 | a | | | | | |
| Active, Production | 15 | a | | | | | |
| Canceled | 50 | 0.83 | 1, 20.3 | 0.373 | 0.373 | 0.002 | 0.000 to 0.127 |

Note: ‡ 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 6.8 (n = 100 engagements) on engagements whose respondents most often answered True and 8.2 (n = 23 engagements) on those whose respondents most often answered False (Welch F 14.96, p < 0.001, omega squared 0.055, n = 123 engagements). The difference reached significance and held after Holm correction in 1 of the 2 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 | 16 of 24 (66.67%) | 40 of 126 (31.75%) | Fisher exact | | 150 | 0.002 |
| Customer satisfaction, active engagements | n = 8 | 64.62%, n = 86 | ‡ | | 94 | |
| Engagement mean written score and cancellation, engagements | | | Point-biserial r | −0.21 | 109 | 0.031 |
| Respondent mean written score and intent to leave, respondents | | | Spearman rho | −0.08 | 225 | 0.215 |

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

Two comparisons set the engagements with at least one negative response against all other engagements. Of the 126 other engagements, 41 had no written response addressing the indicator. These two comparisons therefore do not isolate written sentiment. Of the 24 engagements with a negative response, 16 (66.67%) were canceled, against 40 of the 126 other engagements (31.75%). The difference reached significance (Fisher exact p = 0.002). The comparison of customer satisfaction was not computed, because one of the two groups held too few active engagements.

Two correlations test written sentiment directly. Across the 109 engagements with a written response, a more negative engagement mean written score came with cancellation (point-biserial r −0.21, p = 0.031). Across 225 respondents, the respondent mean written score was not associated with intent to leave (Spearman rho −0.08, p = 0.215). Of the three comparisons, two 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 | 123 | 0.049 | 0.008 | No | 2 |
| Customer satisfaction | Not tested: fewer than two levels of 10 or more engagements | | | | | |
| Engagement indicator mean | Omega squared | 123 | 0.045 | < 0.001 | No | 3 |
| Intent to leave | Omega squared | 123 | 0.055 | < 0.001 | No | 1 |

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 intent to leave (0.055) and weakest with the engagement indicator mean (0.045). The association with customer satisfaction was not tested and has no effect size.

## Clustering and Effective Sample Size

Table 19. Clustering and effective sample sizeTable

| Statistic | Value | Reading |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Clusters (engagements) | 132 | Engagements with one or more answers. |
| Mean respondents per engagement | 3.6 | Answers per engagement, among engagements with one or more answers. |
| ICC(1) | 0.25 | Share of the variance that lies between engagements. |
| Design effect | 1.65 | One plus the product of the ICC and the mean cluster size less one. |
| Nominal respondent n | 472 | Every answer, with “I do not know” and “I prefer to not answer” counted as levels, as in the plurality rule. |
| Effective n | 287 | 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 0.25). Clustering reduced the 472 respondent answers to the equivalent of about 287 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 | 123 | 0.049 | Omega squared < 0.090 | 0.222 | No | 0.93 | 0.061 |
| Customer satisfaction | a | | | | | | |
| Engagement indicator mean | 123 | 0.045 | Omega squared < 0.090 | 0.189 | No | 0.93 | 0.061 |
| Intent to leave | 123 | 0.055 | Omega squared < 0.090 | 0.269 | No | 0.93 | 0.061 |

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

No association tested was equivalent to 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 | Not computed | Not computed | Not computed | Not computed |
| Kruskal-Wallis in place of Welch F | Engagement indicator mean | < 0.001 | 0.014 | 6.01 | Yes |
| Kruskal-Wallis in place of Welch F | Intent to leave | < 0.001 | 0.009 | 6.84 | Yes |
| Active engagements only | Engagement indicator mean | < 0.001 | Not computed | Not computed | Not computed |
| Active engagements only | Intent to leave | < 0.001 | Not computed | Not computed | Not computed |
| Respondent level, cluster-robust Wald F by engagement | Cancellation rate | 0.008 | < 0.001 | 13.40 | Yes |
| Respondent level, cluster-robust Wald F by engagement | Customer satisfaction | Not computed | < 0.001 | 23.12 | Not computed |
| Respondent level, cluster-robust Wald F by engagement | Engagement indicator mean | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 67.17 | Yes |
| Respondent level, cluster-robust Wald F by engagement | Intent to leave | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 30.79 | Yes |

All five checks computed held. Four checks were not computed, because the primary test or the check had too few engagements in a level: the Kruskal-Wallis check for customer satisfaction, the check on active engagements alone for the engagement indicator mean, the check on active engagements alone for intent to leave and the respondent-level clustered check for customer satisfaction. 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, 11.28%, ranked 13th from the highest, against a median of 98.03%. Its mean written score, 4.0, ranked 13th 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 = 257 responses)ExhibitNote: Themes carry no score. Labels give the count and the share of the 257 responses. The figure shows each indicator and each theme among the five most frequent of its kind, with every tie at the cut. C205: “I have altered client processes” C207: “I or my management discussed process alteration with the client” C209: “My greater team regularly alters client processes.” C109: “Rate how quickly the customer responds when this engagement raises issues that need customer action.” C100: “Rate how completely the customer's processes are mapped and documented to the depth agentic AI requires.” Emotional states in the same responses, as counts: resigned 25, calm or fine 20, tired 15, frustrated 7, stressed 3, proud 1.

The indicator most often present in the same responses was C205, “I have altered client processes”, in 167 of the 257 responses (64.98%). C207, “I or my management discussed process alteration with the client” (94 responses), C209, “My greater team regularly alters client processes.” (51 responses), C109, “Rate how quickly the customer responds when this engagement raises issues that need customer action.” (41 responses) and C100, “Rate how completely the customer's processes are mapped and documented to the depth agentic AI requires.” (30 responses) followed.

The most frequent theme was “Told vendor-side management”, in 232 responses (90.27%). The second was “Occurs every cycle or most days”, in 64 responses.

## Interpretation of the Data

Of the respondents who answered, 74.29% said they had discussed the process alteration with internal management. Engagements whose respondents most often said so were canceled less often, recorded a higher engagement indicator mean and reported lower intent to leave than those whose respondents most often said they had not. The association with customer satisfaction was not tested. Every check that could be computed held.

The written evidence describes disclosure that stopped inside the vendor. Respondents who discussed the alteration told the team lead or manager, and few responses said the financial institution had been told. Respondents who told no one described the same alterations made in silence. The associations do not establish that internal disclosure produced the outcomes.

## 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 (257 responses on 109 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 practice in other words is not counted, so each count is a floor.

Only 23 engagements were assigned the answer False, so the comparisons rest on a small group.

## 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 C206, sha256 219eba0457274d04 |
| Statistics engine | compute_statistics.py, sha256 738319eef764602b |
| Statistics record | Computed Statistics.json, record C206, sha256 1ae50a3637fc9370 |
| Computed | October 13, 2026, 04:57 UTC |
| Template | Indicator Template v2, version 2.0 of 10 October 2026 |
| Figures placed by script | 931 |
| 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 | C206.qa.json, sha256 0ce487a7762b6e66. C206.wfacts.json, sha256 258be6fa45917609. Hand-written text handcraft/C206.json, sha256 7de9d982327297fc |