Source: https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-1-analysis-measured-return/ Author: Phil Hatch Publisher: Akholi Reported return on the engagement: ROI % Study Data · Part 1 · Indicator Deep-Dive Analysis # Reported return on the engagement: ROI % Indicator ANALYSIS:measured_return · By Phil Hatch · Akholi · October 9, 2026 ← Study Data← Previous indicatorNext indicator → ## On this page 20 sectionsIndicator SpecificationSummary of FindingsAnalysis ResultsDistribution of Recorded ValuesDescriptive 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 NormInterpretation of the DataLimitationsDefinitionsSources and Provenance ## Indicator Specification Table 1. Indicator specificationTable | Field | Value | | --- | --- | | Indicator code | None, a derived analysis | | Question as asked | Reported return on the engagement: ROI % | | Failure category | Not one of the 100 rated indicators | | Place in the survey | Not a survey item | | Indicator class | Derived from other indicators | | Indicator type | Derived analysis | | Response scale | Not applicable, a derived analysis | | Answering base | As stated in Analysis Results | | Non-answers | Not applicable | ## Summary of Findings Respondents reported a return on 17 of the 30 engagements in production. Among the engagements with a reported return, the return on the engagement had a mean close to its median (mean 24.7, n = 17 engagements, median 23.0). The rule printed in Analysis Results recorded all 10 canceled engagements in production at zero return. Active engagements in production (n = 20 engagements) had a mean return (mean 21.0), and 3 of them were recorded at zero. Among engagements with a reported return, higher returns came with higher customer satisfaction (r = 0.71, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.89, n = 17 engagements) and lower intent to leave (r = −0.71, 95% CI −0.89 to −0.34, n = 17 engagements). The association between return and the engagement indicator mean did not hold under test (r = 0.47, 95% CI −0.01 to 0.78, p 0.056, n = 17 engagements). ## Analysis Results The figures in this section were computed for the study and placed by code from the statistics record. Table 2. Analysis resultsTable | Item | Value | | --- | --- | | Unit of analysis | Engagement | | Rule | a | | Engagements in production | 30 | | Production engagements canceled | 10 | | Returns recorded outside production | 0 | | Returns recorded in production, zero included | 30 | | Reported a return above zero | 17 | | Mean return of those reporting one, percent | 24.7 | | Production engagements with a zero return | 13 | | Of those, canceled | 10 | | Active production engagements with a zero return | 3 | | Base under 30 (thin base) | Yes | Note: a R-008: a return's base is the engagements in production, and a zero is an engagement that has not generated a return. Active production engagements, the return. Table 3. Analysis results: active production engagements, measured returnTable | Item | Value | | --- | --- | | n | 20 | | Mean | 21.0 | | SD | 14.7 | | Median | 20.0 | | Min | 0.0 | | Max | 47.0 | Engagements that reported a return above zero, the return. Table 4. Analysis results: engagements that reported a return above zero, measured returnTable | Item | Value | | --- | --- | | n | 17 | | Mean | 24.7 | | SD | 12.6 | | Median | 23.0 | | Min | 6.0 | | Max | 47.0 | The return against the measures. Table 5a. Analysis results: measured return against the study measures, part 1 of 2Table | Measure | Base | n | r | R squared | 95% CI | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Customer satisfaction | Engagements that reported a return | 17 | 0.71 | 0.50 | 0.35 to 0.89 | | Engagement indicator mean | Engagements that reported a return | 17 | 0.47 | 0.22 | −0.01 to 0.78 | | Intent to leave | Engagements that reported a return | 17 | −0.71 | 0.50 | −0.89 to −0.34 | Table 5b. Analysis results: measured return against the study measures, part 2 of 2Table | Measure | t | df | p | TOST p | Equivalent to zero | Power at the observed effect | Smallest detectable r (MDE) | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Customer satisfaction | 3.91 | 15 | 0.001 | 0.985 | No | 0.91 | 0.63 | | Engagement indicator mean | 2.07 | 15 | 0.056 | 0.776 | No | 0.48 | 0.63 | | Intent to leave | −3.85 | 15 | 0.002 | 0.983 | No | 0.91 | 0.63 | ## Distribution of Recorded Values This block is a derived analysis. Its own results are in Analysis Results. The blocks of its input indicators carry the response distribution of each input. ## Descriptive Statistics by Segment This block is a derived analysis. Its own results are in Analysis Results. The blocks of its input indicators carry the segment breakdown of each input. ## Tests of Difference Between Segments This block is a derived analysis. Its own results are in Analysis Results. The blocks of its input indicators carry the tests across segments for each input. ## Association with Cancellation Rate This block is a derived analysis. Its own results are in Analysis Results. The blocks of its input indicators carry each input's association with this measure. ## Association with Customer Satisfaction This block is a derived analysis. Its own results are in Analysis Results. The blocks of its input indicators carry each input's association with this measure. ## Association with the Engagement Indicator Mean This block is a derived analysis. Its own results are in Analysis Results. The blocks of its input indicators carry each input's association with this measure. ## Association with Intent to Leave This block is a derived analysis. Its own results are in Analysis Results. The blocks of its input indicators carry each input's association with this measure. ## Comparison of Associations Across the Four Measures This block is a derived analysis. Its own results are in Analysis Results. The blocks of its input indicators carry each input's comparison across the four measures. ## Clustering and Effective Sample Size This block is a derived analysis. Its own results are in Analysis Results. The blocks of its input indicators carry the clustering of each input. ## Equivalence Tests of Null Results This block is a derived analysis. Its own results are in Analysis Results. The blocks of its input indicators carry each input's equivalence test. ## Robustness Checks This block is a derived analysis. Its own results are in Analysis Results. The blocks of its input indicators carry each input's robustness checks. ## Measure Independence and Part-Whole Correction This block is a derived analysis. Its own results are in Analysis Results. The blocks of its input indicators carry each input's identity check. ## Comparison with the Study Norm This block is a derived analysis. Its own results are in Analysis Results. The blocks of its input indicators carry each input's profile. ## Interpretation of the Data The zeros in production came mostly from canceled engagements, 10 of 13. The positive association with customer satisfaction (t 3.91, df 15, p 0.001) and the negative association with intent to leave (t −3.85, df 15, p 0.002) both held under test. ## Limitations The evidence is reported experience: what the delivery team said about its own engagement, gathered in one cross-section. The figures showed associations, not causes. Indicators about the financial institution were reported at second hand by vendor staff. Cancellation is a descriptive contrast, because canceled engagements were rated after they ended. The associations rested on a small group of engagements with a reported return (n = 17 engagements). The test against the engagement indicator mean ran at low power (power at the observed effect 0.48). ## Definitions Table 6. DefinitionsTable | Term | Definition | | --- | --- | | Indicator class | Derived from other indicators: computed by the study from other recorded fields, as Analysis Results sets out. | | Failure category | One of the five failure categories of the Study Taxonomy, section 3. Only the 100 rated indicators carry one, and the indicator is not among them. | | Direction | Each result is read in the direction of the measure it reports. | | Engagement indicator mean | The mean of an engagement's 100 indicator ratings. | ## Sources and Provenance Table 7. Sources and provenanceTable | Item | Value | | --- | --- | | Study data | Study Data.xlsx, sha256 219eba0457274d04 | | Statistics engine | compute_statistics.py, sha256 738319eef764602b | | Statistics record | Computed Statistics.json, record ANALYSIS:measured_return, sha256 e405f65a43e37a6e | | Computed | October 8, 2026, 01:38 UTC | | Template | Indicator Statistical Analysis Template, version 1.1 of 2026-10-06 | | Figures placed by script | 86 of 86 | ## Links to related study evidence - [Part 1](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/part-1-engagement-outcomes/) - [customer satisfaction](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-1-measure-customer-satisfaction/) - [intent to leave](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-4-c019/) - [engagement indicator mean](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-1-measure-engagement-indicator-mean/) - [part 2](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/part-2-five-failure-categories/)