Source: https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-1-c051/
Author: Phil Hatch
Publisher: Akholi

The engagement is not achieving stated KPIs

Study Data · Part 1 · Indicator Deep-Dive Analysis

# The engagement is not achieving stated KPIs

Indicator C051 · By Phil Hatch · Akholi · October 9, 2026

← Study Data← Previous indicatorNext indicator →

## On this page

27 sectionsIndicator SpecificationSummary of FindingsDistribution of RatingsCoverage and Origin of Written ResponsesDistribution of Written SentimentCorrespondence Between Ratings and Written SentimentRating Profile of Respondents Providing Written ResponsesDescriptive 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 Indicators of the Four PartsCo-Occurring Indicators and ThemesInterpretation of the DataLimitationsDefinitionsSources and Provenance

## Indicator Specification

Table 1. Indicator specificationTable

| Field | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Indicator code | C051 |
| Question as asked | The engagement is not achieving stated KPIs. |
| Failure category | Not one of the 100 rated indicators |
| Place in the survey | Engagement Details > 2.5 Performance and Delivery > Delivery Health |
| Indicator class | Respondent level |
| Indicator type | Rated, INV |
| Response scale | 1 to 10, higher is the worse outcome |
| Answering base | 782 of 850 respondents, across 150 of 150 engagements |
| Non-answers | I do not know 0, I prefer to not answer 0, blank 68 |
| Written responses coded to the indicator | 14 responses from 13 respondents on 12 engagements (4 primary, 10 secondary) |

## Summary of Findings

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

| Measure | Form | n | r | 95% CI | p |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Cancellation rate | Descriptive contrast | 150 engagements | −0.59 | −0.69 to −0.48 | < 0.001 |
| Customer satisfaction | Clean estimate | 94 engagements | 0.62 | 0.48 to 0.73 | < 0.001 |
| Engagement indicator mean | Full | 150 engagements | 0.79 | 0.72 to 0.84 | < 0.001 |
| Intent to leave | Respondent level, clustered | 734 respondents | −0.63 | −0.69 to −0.56 | < 0.001 |

Distressed answers on whether the engagement was achieving its stated KPIs came from a minority of answers (241 of 782 answers, 30.82%) and a minority of engagements (32 of 150 engagements). On this item a higher figure marks an engagement closer to its stated KPIs (each figure is 11 minus the raw answer). Engagements rated further from their stated KPIs were canceled more often (r = −0.59, 95% CI −0.69 to −0.48, p < 0.001, n = 150 engagements). Engagements rated closer to their stated KPIs showed higher customer satisfaction on active engagements (r = 0.62, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.73, p < 0.001, n = 94 active engagements) and a higher engagement indicator mean (r = 0.79, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.84, p < 0.001, n = 150 engagements). Respondents who rated the engagement further from its stated KPIs reported higher intent to leave (r = −0.63, cluster bootstrap 95% CI −0.69 to −0.56, p < 0.001, n = 734 respondents). Ratings differed after Holm control by engagement status and lifecycle stage (Welch F 29.64, Holm p < 0.001, omega squared 0.338), by respondent role (Welch F 7.11, Holm p 0.008, omega squared 0.010), and by vendor type (Welch F 4.47, Holm p 0.004, omega squared 0.023).

The indicator had 14 written responses coded to it, from 13 of 850 respondents on 12 of 150 engagements. Negative responses numbered 12 of the 14 scored responses (85.71%). The strongest negative score, −10, was carried by 5 of the 14 scored responses (35.71%). Secondary responses, written in answer to questions outside the indicator's own survey section, numbered 10 of the 14 responses (71.43%). Respondents who wrote rated the indicator lower on the goodness view than respondents who did not (mean 4.3, n = 12 respondents, against mean 4.8, n = 770 respondents), a difference reported with no interval, because fewer than 30 respondents who wrote gave a rating.

## Distribution of Ratings

Table 3. Distribution of ratings, respondent levelTable

| Answer | Respondents | Share of answered (base 782) | Cumulative share | Engagements with at least one | Share of 150 engagements | Distressed |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | 6 | 0.77% | 0.77% | 5 | 3.33% | No |
| 2 | 35 | 4.48% | 5.24% | 24 | 16.00% | No |
| 3 | 43 | 5.50% | 10.74% | 26 | 17.33% | No |
| 4 | 93 | 11.89% | 22.63% | 56 | 37.33% | No |
| 5 | 121 | 15.47% | 38.11% | 77 | 51.33% | No |
| 6 | 131 | 16.75% | 54.86% | 75 | 50.00% | No |
| 7 | 112 | 14.32% | 69.18% | 72 | 48.00% | No |
| 8 | 108 | 13.81% | 82.99% | 67 | 44.67% | Yes |
| 9 | 71 | 9.08% | 92.07% | 47 | 31.33% | Yes |
| 10 | 62 | 7.93% | 100.00% | 36 | 24.00% | Yes |
| I do not know | 0 | Not in base | Not in base | 0 | 0.00% | Not applicable |
| I prefer to not answer | 0 | Not in base | Not in base | 0 | 0.00% | Not applicable |
| Answered, total | 782 | 100.00% | | 150 | 100.00% | |

Table 4. Distribution of ratings, engagement levelTable

| Engagement level summary | Engagements | Mean of engagement means | SD | Min | Median | Max | Engagements with a distressed mean | Share of engagements distressed |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Engagement means, goodness view | 150 | 4.8 | 1.9 | 1.2 | 4.8 | 9.2 | 32 | 21.33% |

The study set mean was 4.8 on 782 answering respondents, with a median of 5.0. 241 answers, 30.82% of the 782, were at the distressed end. A distressed engagement mean was recorded in 32 of 150 engagements.

## Coverage and Origin of Written Responses

Figure 1. Written responses coded to the indicator, by the question answered and by written score (n = 14 responses)ExhibitNote: Primary responses were written in answer to a written-answer question in the indicator's own survey section. Secondary responses were written in answer to a question outside that section and coded to the indicator because their content addressed it. Segments run from −10, strongly negative, in full amber at the left to +10, strongly positive, in the darkest gray at the right. Segments of 3 or more responses are labeled with their count where the drawn segment can hold the label. C055 asked: “How does the vendor manipulate performance reports and dashboards?” C029 asked: “What are your top 3 challenges that reduce your job satisfaction?” C030 asked: “What are the top 3 things that you love most about your job?” C135 asked: “Add any comments on your employer that the ratings in this section do not capture.” C156 asked: “Add any comments on the joint management of this engagement that the ratings in this section do not capture.”
Table 5. Written responses by originTable

| Origin | Responses | Respondents | Engagements | Negative | Strongest negative (−10) | Positive | Mean written score |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Primary | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 of 4 | 1 of 4 | 0 of 4 | ‡ |
| Secondary | 10 | 10 | 10 | 8 of 10 (80.00%) | 4 of 10 (40.00%) | 2 of 10 (20.00%) | −5.0 |
| All responses | 14 | 13 | 12 | 12 of 14 (85.71%) | 5 of 14 (35.71%) | 2 of 14 (14.29%) | −5.4 |

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

Of the 14 responses, 4 (28.57%) were primary and 10 (71.43%) were secondary. The secondary responses came from 10 respondents on 10 engagements, in answer to 4 questions outside the indicator's own survey section (C029 with 6 responses, C030 with 2 responses, C135 with 1 response and C156 with 1 response). One respondent wrote both a primary and a secondary response.

Negative responses made up 8 of the 10 secondary responses (80.00%), against all 4 primary responses. The difference did not reach significance at 0.05 (Fisher exact p = 1.000, n = 14 responses).

## Distribution of Written Sentiment

Figure 2. Distribution of written sentiment (n = 14 scored responses)ExhibitNote: Column height is the share of all scored responses. Labels give the count and the share.
Table 6. Summary statistics of written sentimentTable

| Statistic | Value | Basis |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Mean written score | −5.4 | † n = 14 |
| Median written score | −5.0 | n = 14 responses |
| Negative responses | 12 of 14 (85.71%) | † n = 14 |
| Strongest negative responses (−10) | 5 of 14 (35.71%) | Statements of totality, constancy or serious harm |
| Positive responses | 2 of 14 (14.29%) | +5 or +10 |
| Net balance | −71.43 percentage points | Share positive minus share negative, base 14 responses |
| Respondent-level mean | −5.4 | Mean of each respondent's own mean written score, n = 13 respondents |

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

Of the 14 scored responses, 12 (85.71%) were negative, 5 (35.71%) carried the strongest negative score and 2 (14.29%) were positive. The responses had a mean written score of −5.4 (n = 14 responses on 12 engagements). The base of scored responses was under 30, so no interval was reported for the mean.

## Correspondence Between Ratings and Written Sentiment

Figure 3. Written score against the respondent's rating of the indicator (n = 13 responses with a rating)ExhibitNote: Written score runs from −10 at the left to +10 at the right, and the rating rises from 1 at the bottom to 10 at the top. Marker area is proportional to the number of responses at each combination of written score and rating. The rating is shown on the goodness view, 11 minus the raw rating, so that 10 is the best outcome. Ratings of 3 or below are the distressed range. One of the 14 scored responses had no rating and was excluded.

Respondents whose rating stood at 3 or below on the goodness view wrote 7 of the 11 negative responses with a rating. Written score and rating showed a strong positive correlation that reached significance at 0.05 (Spearman rho 0.65, p = 0.017, n = 13 responses on 11 engagements). The base of responses with a rating was under 30, so no interval was reported for the correlation. Where a written score diverges from the same respondent's rating, the rating is the measure of the indicator.

## Rating Profile of Respondents Providing Written Responses

Figure 4. Distribution of ratings, respondents who wrote about the indicator and respondents who did notExhibitNote: Each group sums to 100% of its own respondents with a rating: 12 who wrote about the indicator and 770 who did not. The rating is shown on the goodness view, 11 minus the raw rating, so that 10 is the best outcome. 

Respondents who wrote about the indicator rated it 0.5 points lower on the goodness view than respondents who did not (mean 4.3, n = 12 respondents, against mean 4.8, n = 770 respondents). The base of respondents who wrote was under 30, so no interval was reported for the difference. Ratings of 3 or below on the goodness view came from 6 of the 12 respondents who wrote and gave a rating (50.00%), against 235 of the 770 respondents who did not write and gave a rating (30.52%). Respondents who wrote formed a self-selected group and not a random sample of the answering base, because written responses were voluntary.

## Descriptive Statistics by Segment

Table 7a. Descriptive statistics by segment, part 1 of 2Table

| Segment | Base | Answered | Answer rate | Engagements | Mean | 95% CI | SD |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Study set | 850 | 782 | 92.00% of 850 | 150 | 4.8 | 4.6 to 4.9 | 2.2 |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | |
| CXM | 232 | 221 | 95.26% of 232 | 42 | 4.9 | 4.7 to 5.2 | 2.2 |
| ITO | 244 | 220 | 90.16% of 244 | 40 | 4.7 | 4.4 to 5.0 | 2.0 |
| BPO | 209 | 187 | 89.47% of 209 | 37 | 4.4 | 4.1 to 4.7 | 2.2 |
| KPO | 165 | 154 | 93.33% of 165 | 31 | 5.0 | 4.6 to 5.4 | 2.4 |
| Institution type | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | 132 | 119 | 90.15% of 132 | 24 | 4.9 | 4.5 to 5.3 | 2.2 |
| Wealth management and private banking | 140 | 132 | 94.29% of 140 | 23 | 4.8 | 4.4 to 5.2 | 2.3 |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | 105 | 99 | 94.29% of 105 | 19 | 4.6 | 4.2 to 5.0 | 2.0 |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | 78 | 72 | 92.31% of 78 | 14 | 4.8 | 4.3 to 5.4 | 2.3 |
| Commercial and business banking | 82 | 73 | 89.02% of 82 | 13 | 5.5 | 5.0 to 6.0 | 2.3 |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | 71 | 65 | 91.55% of 71 | 13 | 4.7 | 4.1 to 5.2 | 2.3 |
| Credit card and payments issuing | 73 | 66 | 90.41% of 73 | 12 | 4.3 | 3.8 to 4.8 | 2.0 |
| Retail and consumer banking | 73 | 64 | 87.67% of 73 | 12 | 4.6 | 4.2 to 5.1 | 1.9 |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | 57 | 55 | 96.49% of 57 | 11 | 4.7 | 4.2 to 5.2 | 2.0 |
| Private equity and private capital | 39 | 37 | 94.87% of 39 | 9 | 4.7 | 3.9 to 5.5 | 2.4 |
| Process family | | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | 248 | 224 | 90.32% of 248 | 47 | 4.7 | 4.4 to 5.0 | 2.1 |
| Technology engineering and operations | 204 | 188 | 92.16% of 204 | 35 | 5.2 | 4.9 to 5.5 | 2.0 |
| Client servicing and communications | 94 | 87 | 92.55% of 94 | 16 | 4.3 | 3.8 to 4.8 | 2.4 |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | 80 | 73 | 91.25% of 80 | 15 | 4.4 | 3.9 to 4.9 | 2.1 |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 73 | 68 | 93.15% of 73 | 12 | 4.9 | 4.3 to 5.4 | 2.2 |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | 57 | 55 | 96.49% of 57 | 9 | 5.8 | 5.2 to 6.5 | 2.4 |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | 51 | 50 | 98.04% of 51 | 9 | 4.3 | 3.6 to 4.9 | 2.3 |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | 43 | 37 | 86.05% of 43 | 7 | 3.6 | 3.0 to 4.3 | 2.0 |
| Class of work | | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | 451 | 417 | 92.46% of 451 | 76 | 4.7 | 4.4 to 4.9 | 2.3 |
| Corporate Functional | 399 | 365 | 91.48% of 399 | 74 | 4.9 | 4.7 to 5.1 | 2.0 |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | 175 | 166 | 94.86% of 175 | 31 | 5.6 | 5.3 to 5.9 | 2.0 |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 250 | 229 | 91.60% of 250 | 43 | 5.5 | 5.3 to 5.8 | 2.0 |
| Active, Production | 103 | 93 | 90.29% of 103 | 20 | 5.8 | 5.4 to 6.2 | 1.9 |
| Canceled | 322 | 294 | 91.30% of 322 | 56 | 3.4 | 3.1 to 3.6 | 1.8 |
| Respondent role | | | | | | | |
| Individual Contributor | 667 | 608 | 91.15% of 667 | 150 | 4.7 | 4.5 to 4.8 | 2.2 |
| Engagement Manager | 150 | 150 | 100.00% of 150 | 150 | 5.1 | 4.7 to 5.4 | 2.1 |
| Portfolio Director | 31 | 24 | 77.42% of 31 | 24 | 5.8 | † | 1.7 |
| Customer Management Executive | 2 | 0 | 0 of 2 | 0 | ‡ | | |
| Vendor type | | | | | | | |
| IT services major | 316 | 287 | 90.82% of 316 | 59 | 4.8 | 4.5 to 5.0 | 2.1 |
| BPO specialist | 198 | 179 | 90.40% of 198 | 37 | 4.2 | 3.9 to 4.6 | 2.1 |
| Consulting firm | 117 | 112 | 95.73% of 117 | 23 | 5.3 | 4.8 to 5.7 | 2.4 |
| Boutique or specialist provider | 87 | 83 | 95.40% of 87 | 17 | 5.0 | 4.6 to 5.5 | 2.1 |
| Pure-play agentic AI firm | 75 | 70 | 93.33% of 75 | 14 | 5.2 | 4.8 to 5.7 | 2.1 |
| Not reported, recovered by engagement | 57 | 51 | 89.47% of 57 | 44 | 4.3 | 3.7 to 4.9 | 2.1 |

Note: † Base under 30. No interval is reported. ‡ Base under 10. No statistic is reported.
Table 7b. Descriptive statistics by segment, part 2 of 2Table

| Segment | Min | Q1 | Median | Q3 | Max | Distressed n | Distressed % |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Study set | 1.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 10.0 | 241 | 30.82% |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | |
| CXM | 1.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 7.0 | 10.0 | 62 | 28.05% |
| ITO | 1.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 9.0 | 65 | 29.55% |
| BPO | 1.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 6.0 | 9.0 | 71 | 37.97% |
| KPO | 1.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 7.0 | 10.0 | 43 | 27.92% |
| Institution type | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | 1.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 10.0 | 32 | 26.89% |
| Wealth management and private banking | 1.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 6.3 | 10.0 | 45 | 34.09% |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | 1.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 9.0 | 32 | 32.32% |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | 1.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 7.0 | 9.0 | 21 | 29.17% |
| Commercial and business banking | 1.0 | 4.0 | 6.0 | 7.0 | 10.0 | 17 | 23.29% |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | 1.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 7.0 | 9.0 | 24 | 36.92% |
| Credit card and payments issuing | 1.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 6.0 | 9.0 | 27 | 40.91% |
| Retail and consumer banking | 1.0 | 3.8 | 4.5 | 6.0 | 9.0 | 16 | 25.00% |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | 1.0 | 3.5 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 10.0 | 14 | 25.45% |
| Private equity and private capital | 1.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 7.0 | 10.0 | 13 | 35.14% |
| Process family | | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | 1.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 10.0 | 65 | 29.02% |
| Technology engineering and operations | 1.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 7.0 | 9.0 | 43 | 22.87% |
| Client servicing and communications | 1.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 6.0 | 10.0 | 36 | 41.38% |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | 1.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 6.0 | 9.0 | 31 | 42.47% |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 1.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 7.0 | 9.0 | 20 | 29.41% |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | 1.0 | 4.5 | 6.0 | 7.0 | 10.0 | 9 | 16.36% |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | 1.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 6.0 | 9.0 | 20 | 40.00% |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | 1.0 | 2.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 7.0 | 17 | 45.95% |
| Class of work | | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | 1.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 10.0 | 142 | 34.05% |
| Corporate Functional | 1.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 10.0 | 99 | 27.12% |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | 1.0 | 4.0 | 6.0 | 7.0 | 10.0 | 26 | 15.66% |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 1.0 | 4.0 | 6.0 | 7.0 | 10.0 | 38 | 16.59% |
| Active, Production | 1.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 7.0 | 10.0 | 7 | 7.53% |
| Canceled | 1.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 9.0 | 170 | 57.82% |
| Respondent role | | | | | | | |
| Individual Contributor | 1.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 10.0 | 200 | 32.89% |
| Engagement Manager | 1.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 7.0 | 9.0 | 40 | 26.67% |
| Portfolio Director | 3.0 | 5.0 | 5.5 | 7.0 | 9.0 | 1 | 4.17% |
| Customer Management Executive | ‡ n = 0 | | | | | | |
| Vendor type | | | | | | | |
| IT services major | 1.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 9.0 | 79 | 27.53% |
| BPO specialist | 1.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 6.0 | 10.0 | 73 | 40.78% |
| Consulting firm | 1.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 7.0 | 10.0 | 34 | 30.36% |
| Boutique or specialist provider | 1.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 10.0 | 17 | 20.48% |
| Pure-play agentic AI firm | 1.0 | 3.3 | 6.0 | 7.0 | 9.0 | 18 | 25.71% |
| Not reported, recovered by engagement | 1.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 6.0 | 9.0 | 20 | 39.22% |

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

Figures are respondent level. Means are on the goodness view. A level under 30 prints no interval and a level under 10 prints counts only.

## Tests of Difference Between Segments

Table 8a. Tests of difference between segments, part 1 of 2Table

| Segment family | Welch F | df | p | Holm p | Omega squared | 90% CI |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Outsourcing model | 0.90 | 3, 78.4 | 0.446 | 1.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 to 0.054 |
| Institution type | 0.32 | 8, 49.7 | 0.953 | 1.000 | −0.037 | 0.000 to 0.005 |
| Process family | 0.84 | 4, 38.2 | 0.509 | 1.000 | −0.001 | 0.000 to 0.066 |
| Class of work | 0.72 | 1, 146.5 | 0.398 | 1.000 | −0.002 | 0.000 to 0.040 |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | 29.64 | 3, 59.4 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.338 | 0.242 to 0.431 |
| Respondent role | 7.11 | 2, 61.4 | 0.002 | 0.008 | 0.010 | 0.002 to 0.028 |
| Vendor type | 4.47 | 5, 230.5 | < 0.001 | 0.004 | 0.023 | 0.009 to 0.045 |

Table 8b. Tests of difference between segments, part 2 of 2Table

| Segment family | Kruskal-Wallis H | p | Distressed chi-square | df | p | Cramer's V | Levels left out |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Outsourcing model | 2.44 | 0.486 | 9.58 | 3 | 0.023 | 0.25 | None |
| Institution type | 2.30 | 0.970 | 9.09 | 8 | 0.339, simulated | 0.25 | a |
| Process family | 4.45 | 0.349 | 1.72 | 4 | 0.802, simulated | 0.12 | b |
| Class of work | 0.95 | 0.330 | 0.10 | 1 | 0.754 | 0.03 | None |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | 54.28 | < 0.001 | 34.24 | 3 | < 0.001, simulated | 0.48 | None |
| Respondent role | 9.21 | 0.010 | 10.44 | 2 | 0.005 | 0.12 | c |
| Vendor type | 22.25 | < 0.001 | 16.51 | 5 | 0.006 | 0.15 | None |

Note: a Private equity and private capital, n = 9. b Credit, underwriting and suitability, n = 9, Regulatory, audit, tax and legal, n = 9, Financial crime and client onboarding, n = 7. c Customer Management Executive, n = 0.

Engagement families were tested on engagement means, and respondent role and vendor type were tested on respondents. A distressed p marked exact is a Fisher exact test for a two by two table, and one marked simulated is a Monte Carlo test run until its p is stable to the third decimal, both used where an expected count is under 5. Engagement status and lifecycle stage differed after Holm control (Welch F 29.64, Holm p < 0.001, tested on engagement means). In Descriptive Statistics by Segment, Active, Production had the highest mean, 5.8 (n = 93 respondents), and Canceled the lowest, 3.4 (n = 294 respondents). Respondent role differed after Holm control (Welch F 7.11, Holm p 0.008, tested on respondents). In Descriptive Statistics by Segment, Portfolio Director had the highest mean, 5.8 (n = 24 respondents), and Individual Contributor the lowest, 4.7 (n = 608 respondents). Vendor type differed after Holm control (Welch F 4.47, Holm p 0.004, tested on respondents). In Descriptive Statistics by Segment, Consulting firm had the highest mean, 5.3 (n = 112 respondents), and BPO specialist the lowest, 4.2 (n = 179 respondents). No difference held after Holm control for outsourcing model, institution type, process family and class of work.

## Written Sentiment by Segment

Figure 5. Written sentiment by engagement status and lifecycle stage, share of each group's responsesExhibitNote: Segments run from −10, strongly negative, in full amber at the left to +10, strongly positive, in the darkest gray at the right. Each bar is 100% of its group's responses. Segments of 12% or more are labeled, as a share on groups of 10 responses or more and as a count on smaller groups. No scored response came from the Active, Build-Out group.
Table 9. Written sentiment by segmentTable

| Segment | Responses | Respondents | Engagements | Mean written score | Negative | Strongest negative (−10) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | 0 | 0 | 0 | No responses | | |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 8 | 8 | 8 | ‡ | 6 of 8 | 2 of 8 |
| Active, Production | 2 | 1 | 1 | ‡ | 2 of 2 | 0 of 2 |
| Canceled | 4 | 4 | 3 | ‡ | 4 of 4 | 3 of 4 |
| Respondent role | | | | | | |
| Individual Contributor | 9 | 8 | 8 | ‡ | 7 of 9 | 3 of 9 |
| Engagement Manager | 3 | 3 | 3 | ‡ | 3 of 3 | 2 of 3 |
| Portfolio Director | 2 | 2 | 2 | ‡ | 2 of 2 | 0 of 2 |
| Customer Management Executive | 0 | 0 | 0 | No responses | | |

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

Scored responses came from 8 engagements in the Active, Transition/Cut-Over group, 1 engagement in the Active, Production group and 3 engagements in the Canceled group. No scored response came from the Active, Build-Out group. A test of mean written scores across the groups, with each engagement counted once, showed no difference that reached significance at 0.05 (Kruskal-Wallis H 2.95, df 1, p = 0.086, n = 11 engagements). The test compared the Active, Transition/Cut-Over group and the Canceled group. It left out the Active, Production group, which held fewer than two engagements. Groups under 10 responses are reported as counts only. Negative responses numbered 6 of 8 in the Active, Transition/Cut-Over group, 2 of 2 in the Active, Production group and 4 of 4 in the Canceled group.

Across respondent roles, no test was run, because fewer than two roles reached 30 scored responses. Roles under 10 responses are reported as counts only. Among individual contributors, negative responses numbered 7 of 9. Among engagement managers, negative responses numbered 3 of 3. Among portfolio directors, negative responses numbered 2 of 2.

## Association with Cancellation Rate

The share of engagements canceled on the study date, measured at engagement level (base 150 engagements, 56 canceled). The association is a descriptive contrast, inflated because canceled engagements were rated after cancellation, and is not predictive.

Table 10a. Association with cancellation rate by segment, part 1 of 2Table

| Segment | Engagements | Canceled | Cancellation rate | Point-biserial r | 95% CI | p | Holm p |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Study set | 150 | 56 | 37.33% of 150 | −0.59 | −0.69 to −0.48 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | |
| CXM | 42 | 15 | 35.71% of 42 | −0.65 | −0.79 to −0.43 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| ITO | 40 | 15 | 37.50% of 40 | −0.63 | −0.79 to −0.40 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| BPO | 37 | 14 | 37.84% of 37 | −0.56 | −0.75 to −0.29 | < 0.001 | 0.004 |
| KPO | 31 | 12 | 38.71% of 31 | −0.54 | −0.75 to −0.24 | 0.002 | 0.017 |
| Institution type | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | 24 | 13 | 54.17% of 24 | −0.56 | † | 0.005 | 0.042 |
| Wealth management and private banking | 23 | 8 | 34.78% of 23 | −0.84 | † | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | 19 | 9 | 47.37% of 19 | −0.74 | † | < 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | 14 | 5 | 35.71% of 14 | −0.40 | † | 0.161 | 0.377 |
| Commercial and business banking | 13 | 4 | 30.77% of 13 | −0.43 | † | 0.144 | 0.377 |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | 13 | 3 | 23.08% of 13 | −0.48 | † | 0.094 | 0.377 |
| Credit card and payments issuing | 12 | 5 | 41.67% of 12 | −0.68 | † | 0.015 | 0.123 |
| Retail and consumer banking | 12 | 4 | 33.33% of 12 | −0.57 | † | 0.052 | 0.313 |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | 11 | 3 | 27.27% of 11 | −0.51 | † | 0.108 | 0.377 |
| Private equity and private capital | 9 | 2 | 2 of 9 | ‡ | | | |
| Process family | | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | 47 | 19 | 40.43% of 47 | −0.57 | −0.74 to −0.34 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Technology engineering and operations | 35 | 10 | 28.57% of 35 | −0.69 | −0.83 to −0.46 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Client servicing and communications | 16 | 9 | 56.25% of 16 | −0.70 | † | 0.002 | 0.024 |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | 15 | 8 | 53.33% of 15 | −0.50 | † | 0.055 | 0.313 |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 12 | 2 | 16.67% of 12 | −0.59 | † | 0.042 | 0.291 |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | 9 | 1 | 1 of 9 | ‡ | | | |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | 9 | 4 | 4 of 9 | ‡ | | | |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | 7 | 3 | 3 of 7 | ‡ | | | |
| Class of work | | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | 76 | 30 | 39.47% of 76 | −0.54 | −0.69 to −0.36 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Corporate Functional | 74 | 26 | 35.14% of 74 | −0.64 | −0.76 to −0.49 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | 31 | 0 | 0.00% of 31 | Not computable, no variation in cancellation |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 43 | 0 | 0.00% of 43 | Not computable, no variation in cancellation |
| Active, Production | 20 | 0 | 0.00% of 20 | Not computable, no variation in cancellation |
| Canceled | 56 | 56 | 100.00% of 56 | Not computable, no variation in cancellation |

Note: † Base under 30. No interval is reported. ‡ Base under 10. No statistic is reported.
Table 10b. Association with cancellation rate by segment, part 2 of 2Table

| Segment | Odds ratio per point | 95% CI | AUC | Rate, distressed engagements | Rate, other engagements | Fisher p | TOST p |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Study set | 0.37 | 0.27 to 0.51 | 0.86 | 81.25% of 32 | 25.42% of 118 | < 0.001 | 1.000 |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | |
| CXM | 0.24 | 0.10 to 0.59 | 0.91 | 4 of 5 | 29.73% of 37 | 0.047 | 0.998 |
| ITO | 0.29 | 0.14 to 0.62 | 0.88 | 8 of 9 | 22.58% of 31 | < 0.001 | 0.996 |
| BPO | 0.46 | 0.28 to 0.76 | 0.82 | 71.43% of 14 | 17.39% of 23 | 0.002 | 0.970 |
| KPO | 0.42 | 0.21 to 0.83 | 0.80 | 4 of 4 | 29.63% of 27 | 0.016 | 0.944 |
| Institution type | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | 0.40 | † n = 24 | 0.82 | 4 of 4 | 45.00% of 20 | 0.098 | 0.928 |
| Wealth management and private banking | 0.00 | † n = 23 | 0.99 | 7 of 7 | 6.25% of 16 | < 0.001 | 1.000 |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | 0.13 | † n = 19 | 0.94 | 2 of 2 | 41.18% of 17 | 0.211 | 0.995 |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | 0.61 | † n = 14 | 0.76 | 2 of 4 | 30.00% of 10 | 0.580 | 0.641 |
| Commercial and business banking | 0.55 | † n = 13 | 0.75 | 1 of 1 | 25.00% of 12 | 0.308 | 0.681 |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | 0.46 | † n = 13 | 0.83 | 2 of 3 | 10.00% of 10 | 0.108 | 0.754 |
| Credit card and payments issuing | 0.30 | † n = 12 | 0.86 | 4 of 5 | 1 of 7 | 0.072 | 0.939 |
| Retail and consumer banking | 0.20 | † n = 12 | 0.84 | 1 of 1 | 27.27% of 11 | 0.333 | 0.846 |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | 0.25 | † n = 11 | 0.88 | 1 of 2 | 2 of 9 | 0.491 | 0.765 |
| Private equity and private capital | ‡ n = 9 | | | | | | |
| Process family | | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | 0.37 | 0.20 to 0.66 | 0.84 | 7 of 9 | 31.58% of 38 | 0.021 | 0.988 |
| Technology engineering and operations | 0.23 | 0.09 to 0.60 | 0.91 | 6 of 7 | 14.29% of 28 | < 0.001 | 0.999 |
| Client servicing and communications | 0.12 | † n = 16 | 0.92 | 4 of 4 | 41.67% of 12 | 0.088 | 0.979 |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | 0.53 | † n = 15 | 0.76 | 4 of 5 | 40.00% of 10 | 0.282 | 0.802 |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 0.31 | † n = 12 | 1.00 | 2 of 2 | 0.00% of 10 | 0.015 | 0.870 |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | ‡ n = 9 | | | | | | |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | ‡ n = 9 | | | | | | |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | ‡ n = 7 | | | | | | |
| Class of work | | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | 0.44 | 0.30 to 0.66 | 0.82 | 82.35% of 17 | 27.12% of 59 | < 0.001 | 0.995 |
| Corporate Functional | 0.29 | 0.17 to 0.50 | 0.89 | 80.00% of 15 | 23.73% of 59 | < 0.001 | 1.000 |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | Not computable, no variation in cancellation |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | Not computable, no variation in cancellation |
| Active, Production | Not computable, no variation in cancellation |
| Canceled | Not computable, no variation in cancellation |

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

The study set r was −0.59 (95% CI −0.69 to −0.48, Holm p < 0.001, n = 150 engagements). Of the 20 tested segment levels, 12 held after Holm control.

## Association with Customer Satisfaction

The satisfaction score recorded against each engagement on a 100-point scale. The primary estimate uses the 94 active engagements. A descriptive contrast uses all 150 engagements.

Table 11a. Association with customer satisfaction by segment, part 1 of 2Table

| Segment | Active engagements | Clean r | 95% CI | p | Holm p | Spearman rho | p |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Study set | 94 | 0.62 | 0.48 to 0.73 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.62 | < 0.001 |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | |
| CXM | 27 | 0.63 | † | < 0.001 | 0.005 | 0.55 | 0.003 |
| ITO | 25 | 0.56 | † | 0.003 | 0.024 | 0.62 | < 0.001 |
| BPO | 23 | 0.73 | † | < 0.001 | 0.001 | 0.64 | 0.001 |
| KPO | 19 | 0.75 | † | < 0.001 | 0.003 | 0.76 | < 0.001 |
| Institution type | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | 11 | 0.78 | † | 0.004 | 0.024 | 0.81 | 0.002 |
| Wealth management and private banking | 15 | 0.77 | † | < 0.001 | 0.008 | 0.69 | 0.004 |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | 10 | 0.10 | † | 0.785 | 0.785 | −0.05 | 0.881 |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | 9 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Commercial and business banking | 9 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | 10 | 0.84 | † | 0.003 | 0.020 | 0.86 | 0.001 |
| Credit card and payments issuing | 7 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Retail and consumer banking | 8 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | 8 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Private equity and private capital | 7 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Process family | | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | 28 | 0.57 | † | 0.002 | 0.014 | 0.52 | 0.005 |
| Technology engineering and operations | 25 | 0.44 | † | 0.027 | 0.082 | 0.53 | 0.006 |
| Client servicing and communications | 7 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | 7 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 10 | 0.78 | † | 0.008 | 0.033 | 0.85 | 0.002 |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | 8 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | 5 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | 4 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Class of work | | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | 46 | 0.75 | 0.59 to 0.86 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.78 | < 0.001 |
| Corporate Functional | 48 | 0.41 | 0.14 to 0.62 | 0.004 | 0.024 | 0.38 | 0.009 |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | 31 | 0.39 | 0.05 to 0.66 | 0.028 | 0.082 | 0.41 | 0.022 |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 43 | 0.71 | 0.51 to 0.83 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.71 | < 0.001 |
| Active, Production | 20 | 0.69 | † | < 0.001 | 0.009 | 0.64 | 0.002 |
| Canceled | 0 | a |

Note: † Base under 30. No interval is reported. ‡ Base under 10. No statistic is reported. a No clean estimate, canceled engagements fall outside the active population.
Table 11b. Association with customer satisfaction by segment, part 2 of 2Table

| Segment | Slope, points per rating point | 95% CI | R squared | TOST p | All engagements | Descriptive r | p |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Study set | 4.41 | 3.25 to 5.57 | 0.38 | 1.000 | 150 | 0.70 | < 0.001 |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | |
| CXM | 5.19 | † n = 27 | 0.39 | 0.982 | 42 | 0.76 | < 0.001 |
| ITO | 3.96 | † n = 25 | 0.32 | 0.937 | 40 | 0.73 | < 0.001 |
| BPO | 4.24 | † n = 23 | 0.53 | 0.997 | 37 | 0.68 | < 0.001 |
| KPO | 5.46 | † n = 19 | 0.57 | 0.996 | 31 | 0.70 | < 0.001 |
| Institution type | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | 4.29 | † n = 11 | 0.62 | 0.983 | 24 | 0.62 | 0.001 |
| Wealth management and private banking | 5.26 | † n = 15 | 0.60 | 0.994 | 23 | 0.92 | < 0.001 |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | 1.15 | † n = 10 | 0.01 | 0.289 | 19 | 0.73 | < 0.001 |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | ‡ n = 9 | | | | | | |
| Commercial and business banking | ‡ n = 9 | | | | | | |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | 6.44 | † n = 10 | 0.70 | 0.992 | 13 | 0.76 | 0.003 |
| Credit card and payments issuing | ‡ n = 7 | | | | | | |
| Retail and consumer banking | ‡ n = 8 | | | | | | |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | ‡ n = 8 | | | | | | |
| Private equity and private capital | ‡ n = 7 | | | | | | |
| Process family | | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | 4.68 | † n = 28 | 0.32 | 0.954 | 47 | 0.68 | < 0.001 |
| Technology engineering and operations | 3.59 | † n = 25 | 0.19 | 0.778 | 35 | 0.75 | < 0.001 |
| Client servicing and communications | ‡ n = 7 | | | | | | |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | ‡ n = 7 | | | | | | |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 5.24 | † n = 10 | 0.60 | 0.973 | 12 | 0.80 | 0.002 |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | ‡ n = 8 | | | | | | |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | ‡ n = 5 | | | | | | |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | ‡ n = 4 | | | | | | |
| Class of work | | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | 5.28 | 3.87 to 6.68 | 0.57 | 1.000 | 76 | 0.70 | < 0.001 |
| Corporate Functional | 2.99 | 1.01 to 4.97 | 0.17 | 0.798 | 74 | 0.70 | < 0.001 |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | 2.45 | 0.28 to 4.61 | 0.16 | 0.715 | 31 | 0.39 | 0.028 |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 5.34 | 3.65 to 7.04 | 0.50 | 1.000 | 43 | 0.71 | < 0.001 |
| Active, Production | 4.87 | † | 0.47 | 0.985 | 20 | 0.69 | < 0.001 |
| Canceled | no clean estimate, canceled engagements fall outside the active population |

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

The study set r was 0.62 (95% CI 0.48 to 0.73, Holm p < 0.001, n = 94 engagements). Of the 16 tested segment levels, 13 held after Holm control.

## Association with the Engagement Indicator Mean

The mean of an engagement's 100 indicator ratings, measured at engagement level (base 150 engagements). Where this indicator is one of the 100, the mean is recomputed without it.

Table 12a. Association with the engagement indicator mean by segment, part 1 of 2Table

| Segment | Engagements | Leave-one-out r | 95% CI | p | Holm p | Spearman rho | p |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Study set | 150 | 0.79 | 0.72 to 0.84 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.79 | < 0.001 |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | |
| CXM | 42 | 0.77 | 0.61 to 0.87 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.76 | < 0.001 |
| ITO | 40 | 0.75 | 0.57 to 0.86 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.74 | < 0.001 |
| BPO | 37 | 0.82 | 0.67 to 0.90 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.81 | < 0.001 |
| KPO | 31 | 0.85 | 0.70 to 0.92 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.85 | < 0.001 |
| Institution type | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | 24 | 0.84 | † | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.76 | < 0.001 |
| Wealth management and private banking | 23 | 0.89 | † | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.85 | < 0.001 |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | 19 | 0.68 | † | 0.001 | 0.008 | 0.67 | 0.002 |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | 14 | 0.81 | † | < 0.001 | 0.004 | 0.83 | < 0.001 |
| Commercial and business banking | 13 | 0.83 | † | < 0.001 | 0.004 | 0.79 | 0.001 |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | 13 | 0.83 | † | < 0.001 | 0.004 | 0.86 | < 0.001 |
| Credit card and payments issuing | 12 | 0.71 | † | 0.009 | 0.028 | 0.64 | 0.026 |
| Retail and consumer banking | 12 | 0.57 | † | 0.052 | 0.052 | 0.55 | 0.063 |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | 11 | 0.81 | † | 0.002 | 0.010 | 0.84 | 0.001 |
| Private equity and private capital | 9 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Process family | | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | 47 | 0.73 | 0.56 to 0.84 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.75 | < 0.001 |
| Technology engineering and operations | 35 | 0.76 | 0.57 to 0.87 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.77 | < 0.001 |
| Client servicing and communications | 16 | 0.87 | † | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.85 | < 0.001 |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | 15 | 0.81 | † | < 0.001 | 0.002 | 0.80 | < 0.001 |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 12 | 0.79 | † | 0.002 | 0.010 | 0.80 | 0.002 |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | 9 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | 9 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | 7 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Class of work | | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | 76 | 0.84 | 0.76 to 0.90 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.82 | < 0.001 |
| Corporate Functional | 74 | 0.73 | 0.61 to 0.82 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.73 | < 0.001 |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | 31 | 0.44 | 0.10 to 0.69 | 0.013 | 0.028 | 0.44 | 0.014 |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 43 | 0.78 | 0.62 to 0.87 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.75 | < 0.001 |
| Active, Production | 20 | 0.84 | † | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.76 | < 0.001 |
| Canceled | 56 | 0.51 | 0.29 to 0.68 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.54 | < 0.001 |

Note: † Base under 30. No interval is reported. ‡ Base under 10. No statistic is reported.
Table 12b. Association with the engagement indicator mean by segment, part 2 of 2Table

| Segment | r with indicator included | Change in r | Slope | 95% CI | R squared | TOST p | Equivalent |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Study set | Not a component | | 0.63 | 0.55 to 0.71 | 0.62 | 1.000 | No |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | |
| CXM | Not a component | | 0.68 | 0.50 to 0.86 | 0.60 | 1.000 | No |
| ITO | Not a component | | 0.56 | 0.40 to 0.73 | 0.56 | 1.000 | No |
| BPO | Not a component | | 0.56 | 0.43 to 0.70 | 0.67 | 1.000 | No |
| KPO | Not a component | | 0.70 | 0.54 to 0.87 | 0.72 | 1.000 | No |
| Institution type | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | Not a component | | 0.71 | † n = 24 | 0.70 | 1.000 | No |
| Wealth management and private banking | Not a component | | 0.60 | † n = 23 | 0.80 | 1.000 | No |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | Not a component | | 0.45 | † n = 19 | 0.46 | 0.981 | No |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | Not a component | | 0.65 | † n = 14 | 0.65 | 0.996 | No |
| Commercial and business banking | Not a component | | 0.61 | † n = 13 | 0.70 | 0.998 | No |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | Not a component | | 0.69 | † n = 13 | 0.68 | 0.997 | No |
| Credit card and payments issuing | Not a component | | 0.53 | † n = 12 | 0.51 | 0.960 | No |
| Retail and consumer banking | Not a component | | 0.65 | † n = 12 | 0.33 | 0.847 | No |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | Not a component | | 0.72 | † n = 11 | 0.66 | 0.990 | No |
| Private equity and private capital | ‡ n = 9 | | | | | | |
| Process family | | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | Not a component | | 0.67 | 0.48 to 0.86 | 0.53 | 1.000 | No |
| Technology engineering and operations | Not a component | | 0.58 | 0.40 to 0.76 | 0.57 | 1.000 | No |
| Client servicing and communications | Not a component | | 0.68 | † n = 16 | 0.75 | 1.000 | No |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | Not a component | | 0.58 | † n = 15 | 0.66 | 0.998 | No |
| Payments, cards and disputes | Not a component | | 0.55 | † n = 12 | 0.63 | 0.990 | No |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | ‡ n = 9 | | | | | | |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | ‡ n = 9 | | | | | | |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | ‡ n = 7 | | | | | | |
| Class of work | | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | Not a component | | 0.64 | 0.54 to 0.73 | 0.71 | 1.000 | No |
| Corporate Functional | Not a component | | 0.62 | 0.48 to 0.75 | 0.54 | 1.000 | No |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | Not a component | | 0.30 | 0.07 to 0.53 | 0.19 | 0.808 | No |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | Not a component | | 0.56 | 0.42 to 0.70 | 0.61 | 1.000 | No |
| Active, Production | Not a component | | 0.71 | † n = 20 | 0.71 | 1.000 | No |
| Canceled | Not a component | | 0.25 | 0.14 to 0.37 | 0.26 | 0.968 | No |

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

The study set r was 0.79 (95% CI 0.72 to 0.84, Holm p < 0.001, n = 150 engagements). Of the 24 tested segment levels, 23 held after Holm control.

## Association with Intent to Leave

The respondent's stated likelihood of leaving the current job within 12 months, rated 1 to 10 (C019). Measured at respondent level on up to 798 respondents, with the engagement-level form reported alongside.

Table 13a. Association with intent to leave by segment, part 1 of 2Table

| Segment | Respondents | r | 95% CI | Cluster bootstrap 95% CI | p | Holm p |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Study set | 734 | −0.63 | −0.67 to −0.59 | −0.70 to −0.56 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | |
| CXM | 204 | −0.61 | −0.69 to −0.52 | −0.73 to −0.47 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| ITO | 210 | −0.63 | −0.70 to −0.54 | −0.75 to −0.46 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| BPO | 176 | −0.68 | −0.76 to −0.60 | −0.79 to −0.55 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| KPO | 144 | −0.62 | −0.71 to −0.51 | −0.76 to −0.45 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Institution type | | | | | | |
| Asset management | 109 | −0.62 | −0.73 to −0.49 | −0.77 to −0.35 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Wealth management and private banking | 124 | −0.75 | −0.82 to −0.66 | −0.83 to −0.64 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | 93 | −0.63 | −0.74 to −0.49 | −0.77 to −0.47 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | 66 | −0.68 | −0.79 to −0.52 | −0.82 to −0.43 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Commercial and business banking | 67 | −0.55 | −0.70 to −0.35 | −0.78 to −0.18 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | 63 | −0.76 | −0.85 to −0.63 | −0.86 to −0.57 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Credit card and payments issuing | 64 | −0.65 | −0.77 to −0.48 | −0.78 to −0.43 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Retail and consumer banking | 59 | −0.44 | −0.63 to −0.21 | −0.71 to −0.13 | < 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | 53 | −0.64 | −0.78 to −0.45 | −0.80 to −0.47 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Private equity and private capital | 36 | −0.64 | −0.80 to −0.40 | § n = 9 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Process family | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | 205 | −0.58 | −0.66 to −0.48 | −0.68 to −0.46 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Technology engineering and operations | 178 | −0.61 | −0.70 to −0.51 | −0.76 to −0.41 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Client servicing and communications | 82 | −0.70 | −0.79 to −0.56 | −0.84 to −0.36 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | 69 | −0.62 | −0.75 to −0.45 | −0.83 to −0.28 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 65 | −0.77 | −0.85 to −0.65 | −0.87 to −0.61 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | 51 | −0.69 | −0.81 to −0.51 | § n = 9 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | 48 | −0.67 | −0.80 to −0.47 | § n = 9 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | 36 | −0.58 | −0.76 to −0.30 | § n = 7 | < 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Class of work | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | 391 | −0.66 | −0.71 to −0.60 | −0.73 to −0.56 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Corporate Functional | 343 | −0.60 | −0.66 to −0.53 | −0.70 to −0.49 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | 158 | −0.47 | −0.58 to −0.34 | −0.66 to −0.25 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 216 | −0.54 | −0.63 to −0.44 | −0.66 to −0.39 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Active, Production | 85 | −0.63 | −0.74 to −0.48 | −0.78 to −0.36 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Canceled | 275 | −0.07 | −0.19 to 0.05 | −0.19 to 0.04 | 0.225 | 0.225 |
| Respondent role | | | | | | |
| Individual Contributor | 560 | −0.64 | −0.68 to −0.58 | −0.70 to −0.56 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Engagement Manager | 150 | −0.63 | −0.72 to −0.52 | −0.72 to −0.52 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Portfolio Director | 24 | −0.51 | † | † | 0.011 | 0.022 |
| Customer Management Executive | 0 | ‡ | | | | |
| Vendor type | | | | | | |
| IT services major | 273 | −0.67 | −0.73 to −0.60 | −0.76 to −0.55 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| BPO specialist | 166 | −0.54 | −0.64 to −0.43 | −0.69 to −0.37 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Consulting firm | 106 | −0.65 | −0.75 to −0.53 | −0.79 to −0.48 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Boutique or specialist provider | 75 | −0.66 | −0.77 to −0.51 | −0.82 to −0.39 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Pure-play agentic AI firm | 67 | −0.77 | −0.85 to −0.65 | −0.87 to −0.62 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Not reported, recovered by engagement | 47 | −0.43 | −0.64 to −0.16 | −0.64 to −0.16 | 0.003 | 0.008 |

Note: § Too few engagements for a cluster bootstrap interval. † Base under 30. No interval is reported. ‡ Base under 10. No statistic is reported.
Table 13b. Association with intent to leave by segment, part 2 of 2Table

| Segment | Spearman rho | p | Share at 7 or above, distressed | Share at 7 or above, other | Engagements | Engagement level r | 95% CI | TOST p |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Study set | −0.63 | < 0.001 | 87.17% of 226 | 38.78% of 508 | 150 | −0.70 | −0.77 to −0.60 | 1.000 |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | | |
| CXM | −0.60 | < 0.001 | 76.79% of 56 | 31.08% of 148 | 42 | −0.70 | −0.83 to −0.51 | 1.000 |
| ITO | −0.65 | < 0.001 | 93.65% of 63 | 45.58% of 147 | 40 | −0.69 | −0.82 to −0.47 | 0.999 |
| BPO | −0.68 | < 0.001 | 89.39% of 66 | 35.45% of 110 | 37 | −0.75 | −0.86 to −0.56 | 1.000 |
| KPO | −0.63 | < 0.001 | 87.80% of 41 | 43.69% of 103 | 31 | −0.67 | −0.83 to −0.41 | 0.996 |
| Institution type | | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | −0.58 | < 0.001 | 93.10% of 29 | 52.50% of 80 | 24 | −0.67 | † | 0.990 |
| Wealth management and private banking | −0.76 | < 0.001 | 92.68% of 41 | 28.92% of 83 | 23 | −0.86 | † | 1.000 |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | −0.63 | < 0.001 | 100.00% of 31 | 51.61% of 62 | 19 | −0.75 | † | 0.996 |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | −0.68 | < 0.001 | 84.21% of 19 | 36.17% of 47 | 14 | −0.71 | † | 0.971 |
| Commercial and business banking | −0.54 | < 0.001 | 50.00% of 14 | 43.40% of 53 | 13 | −0.67 | † | 0.943 |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | −0.74 | < 0.001 | 83.33% of 24 | 33.33% of 39 | 13 | −0.82 | † | 0.997 |
| Credit card and payments issuing | −0.66 | < 0.001 | 76.92% of 26 | 36.84% of 38 | 12 | −0.70 | † | 0.952 |
| Retail and consumer banking | −0.44 | < 0.001 | 80.00% of 15 | 31.82% of 44 | 12 | −0.48 | † | 0.739 |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | −0.66 | < 0.001 | 100.00% of 14 | 23.08% of 39 | 11 | −0.74 | † | 0.965 |
| Private equity and private capital | −0.66 | < 0.001 | 92.31% of 13 | 39.13% of 23 | 9 | ‡ | ‡ | |
| Process family | | | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | −0.58 | < 0.001 | 88.14% of 59 | 43.84% of 146 | 47 | −0.64 | −0.78 to −0.44 | 0.999 |
| Technology engineering and operations | −0.64 | < 0.001 | 92.68% of 41 | 35.04% of 137 | 35 | −0.67 | −0.82 to −0.43 | 0.998 |
| Client servicing and communications | −0.60 | < 0.001 | 84.85% of 33 | 48.98% of 49 | 16 | −0.81 | † | 0.999 |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | −0.62 | < 0.001 | 96.55% of 29 | 45.00% of 40 | 15 | −0.66 | † | 0.953 |
| Payments, cards and disputes | −0.78 | < 0.001 | 65.00% of 20 | 17.78% of 45 | 12 | −0.88 | † | 0.999 |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | −0.70 | < 0.001 | ‡ n = 8 | 32.56% of 43 | 9 | ‡ | ‡ | |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | −0.64 | < 0.001 | 94.74% of 19 | 44.83% of 29 | 9 | ‡ | ‡ | |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | −0.58 | < 0.001 | 82.35% of 17 | 42.11% of 19 | 7 | ‡ | ‡ | |
| Class of work | | | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | −0.64 | < 0.001 | 85.93% of 135 | 37.11% of 256 | 76 | −0.72 | −0.81 to −0.59 | 1.000 |
| Corporate Functional | −0.62 | < 0.001 | 89.01% of 91 | 40.48% of 252 | 74 | −0.67 | −0.78 to −0.52 | 1.000 |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | −0.47 | < 0.001 | 54.17% of 24 | 20.15% of 134 | 31 | −0.44 | −0.69 to −0.10 | 0.800 |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | −0.51 | < 0.001 | 61.11% of 36 | 20.56% of 180 | 43 | −0.55 | −0.73 to −0.30 | 0.976 |
| Active, Production | −0.62 | < 0.001 | ‡ n = 7 | 21.79% of 78 | 20 | −0.64 | † | 0.967 |
| Canceled | −0.06 | 0.348 | 100.00% of 159 | 100.00% of 116 | 56 | −0.06 | −0.32 to 0.21 | 0.034 |
| Respondent role | | | | | | | | |
| Individual Contributor | −0.64 | < 0.001 | 88.11% of 185 | 39.20% of 375 | 150 | −0.68 | −0.76 to −0.58 | 1.000 |
| Engagement Manager | −0.63 | < 0.001 | 85.00% of 40 | 37.27% of 110 | 150 | −0.63 | −0.72 to −0.52 | 1.000 |
| Portfolio Director | −0.49 | 0.015 | ‡ n = 1 | 39.13% of 23 | 24 | −0.51 | † | 0.876 |
| Customer Management Executive | ‡ n = 0 | | | | | | | |
| Vendor type | | | | | | | | |
| IT services major | −0.68 | < 0.001 | 86.84% of 76 | 40.61% of 197 | 59 | −0.72 | −0.83 to −0.57 | 1.000 |
| BPO specialist | −0.54 | < 0.001 | 83.33% of 66 | 42.00% of 100 | 37 | −0.61 | −0.78 to −0.36 | 0.991 |
| Consulting firm | −0.66 | < 0.001 | 87.88% of 33 | 30.14% of 73 | 23 | −0.68 | † | 0.990 |
| Boutique or specialist provider | −0.63 | < 0.001 | 93.75% of 16 | 44.07% of 59 | 17 | −0.74 | † | 0.992 |
| Pure-play agentic AI firm | −0.73 | < 0.001 | 100.00% of 17 | 26.00% of 50 | 14 | −0.90 | † | 1.000 |
| Not reported, recovered by engagement | −0.41 | 0.004 | 83.33% of 18 | 48.28% of 29 | 41 | −0.44 | −0.66 to −0.15 | 0.837 |

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

The study set r was −0.63 (95% CI −0.67 to −0.59, Holm p < 0.001, n = 734 respondents). Of the 37 tested segment levels, 36 held after Holm control.

## Association of Written Sentiment with the Study Measures

Table 14. Written sentiment and the study measuresTable

| Comparison | With a negative response | Without a negative response | Test | Statistic | p |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Cancellation rate | 3 of 10 engagements (30.00%) | 53 of 140 engagements (37.86%) | Fisher exact | | 0.744 |
| Customer satisfaction, active engagements | 7 engagements | Mean 64.79%, n = 87 engagements | ‡ | | |
| Engagement mean written score and cancellation | | | Point-biserial r | r = −0.45, n = 12 engagements | 0.139 |
| Respondent mean written score and intent to leave | | | Spearman rho | rho = −0.70, n = 12 respondents | 0.011 |

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

The cancellation contrast compared engagements with a negative written response against all other engagements. The comparison group comprised 140 other engagements, of which 138 had no scored written response coded to the indicator and 2 had only scored responses that were not negative. The contrast therefore did not test written sentiment by itself. Cancellation was recorded for 3 of the 10 engagements with a negative response (30.00%), against 53 of the 140 other engagements (37.86%). The difference did not reach significance at 0.05 (Fisher exact p = 0.744). The customer satisfaction contrast was not computed, because only 7 active engagements had a negative response, fewer than 10. The association of written sentiment itself with the study measures was tested by two correlations. The association of the engagement mean written score with cancellation did not reach significance at 0.05 (r = −0.45, p = 0.139, n = 12 engagements). The association of the respondent mean written score with intent to leave reached significance at 0.05 (rho = −0.70, p = 0.011, n = 12 respondents). Of the three outcome comparisons, one reached significance at 0.05: the correlation of the respondent mean written score with intent to leave. Both comparisons with cancellation were descriptive, because responses on canceled engagements were written after cancellation. Every comparison rested on a thin base, because fewer than 30 engagements had a scored written response.

## Comparison of Associations Across the Four Measures

Table 15. Associations across the four measuresTable

| Measure | Form | Unit | n | r | 95% CI | p | Equivalent to zero | Rank among the four |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Cancellation rate | Descriptive contrast | Engagement | 150 | −0.59 | −0.69 to −0.48 | < 0.001 | No | 4 |
| Customer satisfaction | Clean estimate | Engagement | 94 | 0.62 | 0.48 to 0.73 | < 0.001 | No | 3 |
| Engagement indicator mean | Full | Engagement | 150 | 0.79 | 0.72 to 0.84 | < 0.001 | No | 1 |
| Intent to leave | Respondent level, clustered | Respondent | 734 | −0.63 | −0.69 to −0.56 | < 0.001 | No | 2 |

Table 16. Pairwise comparison of associationsTable

| Pair compared | Difference in r | Steiger z | p | Holm p | Reading |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Cancellation rate and customer satisfaction | −0.11 | −5.11 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | Differ |
| Cancellation rate and engagement indicator mean | −0.20 | −4.95 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | Differ |
| Cancellation rate and intent to leave | −0.10 | −2.60 | 0.009 | 0.018 | Differ |
| Customer satisfaction and engagement indicator mean | −0.09 | −3.18 | 0.001 | 0.004 | Differ |
| Customer satisfaction and intent to leave | 0.01 | 0.42 | 0.674 | 0.674 | Do not differ |
| Engagement indicator mean and intent to leave | 0.10 | 3.38 | < 0.001 | 0.003 | Differ |

Pairs were compared on the engagement level form of every measure, each turned so that a higher value was the better outcome, on the 150 engagements where the indicator and all four measures existed. Of the 6 pairs, 5 differed after Holm control.

## Clustering and Effective Sample Size

Table 17. Clustering and effective sample sizeTable

| Statistic | Value | Reading |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Clusters (engagements) | 150 | Engagements with at least one answer. |
| Mean respondents per engagement | 5.2 | Answers per engagement with at least one answer. |
| ICC(1) | 0.65 | Share of variance between engagements. |
| Design effect | 3.74 | 1 plus (mean cluster size minus 1) times ICC. |
| Nominal respondent n | 782 | Respondents who answered. |
| Effective n | 209 | Nominal n divided by the design effect. |
| Cluster bootstrap applied | Yes | Applied to every respondent level CI where the ICC is 0.05 or above. |

Clustering reduced the 782 respondent answers to about 209 independent answers. Respondent level intervals therefore used the cluster bootstrap, and respondent level tests on intent to leave used cluster-robust errors.

## Equivalence Tests of Null Results

Table 18. Equivalence tests of null resultsTable

| Measure | n | r | Equivalence bound | TOST p, lower | TOST p, upper | Equivalent to zero | Achieved power | MDE at power 0.80 | Detection floor for this n |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Cancellation rate | 150 | −0.59 | \|r\| < 0.30 | 1.000 | < 0.001 | No | 0.96 | 0.23 | 0.23 |
| Customer satisfaction | 94 | 0.62 | \|r\| < 0.30 | < 0.001 | 1.000 | No | 0.84 | 0.29 | 0.23 |
| Engagement indicator mean | 150 | 0.79 | \|r\| < 0.30 | < 0.001 | 1.000 | No | 0.96 | 0.23 | 0.23 |
| Intent to leave | 734, effective 196 | −0.63 | \|r\| < 0.30 | 1.000 | < 0.001 | No | 0.99 | 0.20 | 0.23 |

No measure showed a tested null. No result was inconclusive. The detection floor column is the study floor at 150 engagements. Intent to leave was tested on its effective n.

## Robustness Checks

Table 19. Robustness checksTable

| Check | Measure | Primary r | Check r | 95% CI | Change | Conclusion holds |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Rank correlation in place of Pearson | Cancellation rate | −0.59 | −0.60 | a | −0.01 | Yes |
| Rank correlation in place of Pearson | Customer satisfaction | 0.62 | 0.62 | a | 0.00 | Yes |
| Rank correlation in place of Pearson | Engagement indicator mean | 0.79 | 0.79 | a | 0.00 | Yes |
| Rank correlation in place of Pearson | Intent to leave | −0.63 | −0.63 | a | 0.00 | Yes |
| Non-answers excluded, then imputed at the engagement mean | Intent to leave | −0.63 | −0.62 | a | 0.01 | Yes |
| Active engagements only | Engagement indicator mean | 0.79 | 0.69 | 0.57 to 0.79 | −0.10 | Yes |
| Active engagements only | Intent to leave | −0.63 | −0.53 | −0.60 to −0.47 | 0.10 | Yes |
| Most influential engagement removed (largest Cook's distance) | Cancellation rate | −0.59 | −0.61 | −0.70 to −0.49 | −0.02 | Yes |
| Most influential engagement removed (largest Cook's distance) | Customer satisfaction | 0.62 | 0.65 | 0.51 to 0.75 | 0.03 | Yes |
| Most influential engagement removed (largest Cook's distance) | Engagement indicator mean | 0.79 | 0.80 | 0.73 to 0.85 | 0.01 | Yes |
| Most influential engagement removed (largest Cook's distance) | Intent to leave | −0.63 | −0.65 | −0.69 to −0.60 | −0.01 | Yes |
| Engagements weighted by respondent count | Cancellation rate | −0.59 | −0.58 | a | 0.01 | Yes |
| Engagements weighted by respondent count | Customer satisfaction | 0.62 | 0.63 | a | 0.01 | Yes |
| Engagements weighted by respondent count | Engagement indicator mean | 0.79 | 0.79 | a | 0.00 | Yes |
| Bootstrap of engagements | Cancellation rate | −0.59 | −0.59 | −0.68 to −0.48 | 0.00 | Yes |
| Bootstrap of engagements | Customer satisfaction | 0.62 | 0.62 | 0.48 to 0.74 | 0.00 | Yes |
| Bootstrap of engagements | Engagement indicator mean | 0.79 | 0.79 | 0.72 to 0.85 | 0.00 | Yes |
| Bootstrap of engagements | Intent to leave | −0.63 | −0.63 | −0.69 to −0.56 | 0.00 | Yes |
| Thin-base segments removed | Cancellation rate | −0.59 | −0.62 | −0.74 to −0.47 | −0.03 | Yes |
| Thin-base segments removed | Customer satisfaction | 0.62 | 0.52 | 0.29 to 0.69 | −0.10 | Yes |
| Thin-base segments removed | Engagement indicator mean | 0.79 | 0.74 | 0.62 to 0.83 | −0.05 | Yes |
| Thin-base segments removed | Intent to leave | −0.63 | −0.60 | −0.66 to −0.53 | 0.04 | Yes |

Note: a No interval for this check.

Each change was computed before rounding, so it can differ by 0.01 from the difference of the two printed values.

Every check held. A check holds when its test lands on the same side of 0.05 as the primary test and, where the primary test is below 0.05, its r keeps the primary sign. Thin-base rule: engagements in any level under 30 engagements of outsourcing model or process family removed. Institution type is not used, because every one of its levels is under 30.

## Measure Independence and Part-Whole Correction

Each of the four measures was computed from data this indicator does not contain, so each result is a finding rather than an arithmetic consequence.

## Comparison with the Study Norm

Table 20. Comparison with the study normTable

| Measure | This indicator, oriented r | Study median, oriented r | Deviation | Fisher z | p | Holm p |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Cancellation rate | 0.59 | 0.60 | −0.01 | −0.14 | 0.892 | 1.000 |
| Customer satisfaction | 0.70 | 0.72 | −0.02 | −0.45 | 0.649 | 1.000 |
| Engagement indicator mean | 0.79 | 0.84 | −0.05 | −1.66 | 0.096 | 0.385 |
| Intent to leave | 0.69 | 0.71 | −0.02 | −0.51 | 0.607 | 1.000 |
| Spread of deviations | | | 0.04 | | | |
| Verdict | TYPICAL | | | | | |

Each deviation was computed before rounding, so it can differ by 0.01 from the difference of the two printed values.

The comparison ran on 150 engagements. The indicator followed the study's typical pattern on every measure.

## Comparison of Written Sentiment with Indicators of the Four Parts

Figure 6. Share of negative written responses, indicators of the four Parts with 30 or more scored responses (n = 101 indicators), with the indicator addedExhibitNote: Each column is one indicator, ordered from the highest share of negative responses. The indicator is shown in amber. The dashed line marks the median share across the 101 indicators, 79.55%. The indicator had fewer than 30 scored responses, so it is shown for comparison and is not part of the median.

The peer set comprised 101 indicators of the four Parts with 30 or more scored responses. The indicator was outside the peer set, because it had fewer than 30 scored responses. It was added to the ranking only and did not enter the peer median. Its share of negative responses ranked 37 of 102 from the highest. Its mean written score (−5.4, n = 14 responses) ranked 38 of 102 from the most negative. The peer median of the mean written score was −4.6 across the 101 indicators.

## Co-Occurring Indicators and Themes

Figure 7. Other indicators and themes coded in the same written responses (n = 14 responses)ExhibitNote: Gray bars are other indicators coded in the same responses. Amber bars are themes of the coding rulebook, which carry no score. Shares are of the 14 responses coded to the indicator. Every co-coded indicator and every theme at or above the fifth-highest count of its kind is shown, ties included. C052: “The dashboard and performance reports given to the customer are accurate.” C053: “The vendor manipulates the dashboard and performance reports given to the customer.” C122: “Rate your employer's current supply of qualified agentic AI talent against what its engagements need.” C013: “How well do you know agentic AI specific to the financial industry?” C018: “How happy are you with your current job?” C080: “My manager is effective.” C098: “Rate how well the customer's legacy systems support the integration this engagement requires.” C103: “Rate the customer's willingness to redesign processes for agentic AI rather than automate them as they are.” C108: “Rate the customer's ability to provision the system access and identities that AI agents require.” C115: “Rate the overall effectiveness of your employer's top leadership team.” C116: “Rate how well your employer is transforming its commercial model as agentic AI reduces the billable human effort it sells today.” C123: “Rate the adequacy of your employer's investment in training its workforce.” C124: “Rate how well your employer's training programs build practical agentic AI skills.” C126: “Rate the maturity of your employer's playbook for taking agentic use cases from concept to governed production.” C131: “Rate the depth of your employer's knowledge of agentic AI.” C136: “Rate how effectively the customer and vendor jointly manage this engagement now that agents perform part of the work.” C144: “Rate how well the joint change control process keeps pace with the speed of agent behavior changes.” C145: “Rate how well agent updates made by one firm become visible to the other firm before they take effect.” C152: “Rate how fully each firm can see what the other firm's agents actually did when questions arise.” C173: “Rate the tools' ability to explain and evidence how each output was produced, at the depth an audit requires.” “ENG:ROI %” is a field of the Engagements sheet. Emotional states coded in the same responses, as counts: stressed 1.

The co-coded indicators tied as most frequent in the responses coded to the indicator were “The dashboard and performance reports given to the customer are accurate” (C052, 4 responses) and “The vendor manipulates the dashboard and performance reports given to the customer” (C053, 4 responses). The only themes of the coding rulebook coded in the same responses were “Positive with an embedded negative,” “SLA definitions do not fit agent work” and “Skills learned,” each in 1 response.

## Interpretation of the Data

Canceled engagements had the lowest KPI ratings (mean 3.4, n = 294 respondents), and Active, Production had the highest (mean 5.8, n = 93 respondents). Individual Contributor respondents gave the lowest ratings by role (mean 4.7, n = 608 respondents), and Portfolio Director respondents gave the highest (mean 5.8, n = 24 respondents). BPO specialist respondents rated lowest by vendor type (mean 4.2, n = 179 respondents), and Consulting firm respondents rated highest (mean 5.3, n = 112 respondents). The associations with the four study measures held under every robustness check run on this item (22 of 22 checks).

The written responses corroborated the rating at respondent level, with a strong positive correlation between written score and rating. Written responses were voluntary. They recorded what the respondents who wrote reported, and how common it was is measured by the ratings. The analysis of the written responses rested on 14 responses, a thin base.

## 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.

Tests across respondent role and vendor type were run at respondent level and treated respondents as independent. The section Clustering and Effective Sample Size states whether, and by how much, clustering within engagements reduced the information in respondent level figures.

Answers clustered within engagements, which reduced the effective number of independent answers (ICC 0.65, 782 answers worth about 209 independent answers). No Customer Management Executive respondent answered this item (n = 0).

Shares of written sentiment were shares of responses, not of the study set of respondents. The written score took five fixed values, so its mean and median were coarse. Responses clustered within engagements. With fewer than 30 scored responses, no interval is reported for written sentiment. Coding was performed by AI coders under a fixed rulebook. Agreement on whether a response was coded to the indicator rested on 1 response second-coded under rulebook 0.5, with the coders agreeing on 1 of 1. Agreement on the score rested on 1 response second-scored under rulebook 0.5, with the scores agreeing in 1 of 1. These bases of second-coded responses are too small for an indicator-level alpha.

## Definitions

Table 21. DefinitionsTable

| Term | Definition |
| --- | --- |
| Response scale | Ratings run from 1 to 10. Where a high rating is the worse outcome, the analysis uses the goodness view, 11 minus the raw rating. |
| Distressed | A rating of 3 or below on the goodness view. At engagement level, an engagement mean of 3 or below. |
| Answering base | Respondents who gave a rating from 1 to 10. |
| Non-answers | “I do not know” and “I prefer to not answer” are counted separately and are excluded from the mean. |
| Indicator class | Respondent level: a value recorded for each respondent and computed across the respondents who answered. |
| 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. |
| Engagement indicator mean | The mean of an engagement's 100 indicator ratings. |
| Written response | A coded written answer about the respondent's own engagement. Non-answers and answers about another engagement are excluded. |
| Primary and secondary | Primary responses were written in answer to a written-answer question in the indicator's own survey section. Secondary responses were written in answer to a question outside that section and coded to the indicator because their content addressed it. |
| Written sentiment scale | Five fixed values of the coding rulebook: −10, −5, 0, +5, +10. The sign is the direction and the magnitude is the strength. |
| Coding | Responses were coded under rulebook 0.5. Scores were added under rulebook 0.6 to every mark and every quote, with the score rulings of rulebook section 21. AI coders worked under a fixed rulebook. A sample of records was second-coded. Score agreement across all indicators was Krippendorff's alpha 0.969 on the 0.5 scores and 0.930 on the scores added in 0.6. |

## Sources and Provenance

Table 22. Sources and provenanceTable

| Item | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Study data | Study Data.xlsx, Data sheet, column C051, sha256 219eba0457274d04 |
| Statistics engine | compute_statistics.py, sha256 738319eef764602b |
| Statistics record | Computed Statistics.json, record C051, 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 | 2,366 of 2,366 |
| Study metadata | Study Meta.md, sections 10.4 and 10.4.1, coder agreement across all indicators |
| Coded written responses | Quotes Master.jsonl, sha256 27da38085e2b13fd. Quote Coding Rulebook, version 0.6 with section 21 |
| Written-response computation | qa_stats.py, sha256 74a61f3a96169da9. wfacts.py, sha256 b85fae20adf812a1. prose_gen.py, sha256 c277d2c752f8d88f. build_indicator.py, sha256 da3473bd56a4a7b9 |
| Written-response records | C051.qa.json, sha256 4d17afaf294b6f10. C051.wfacts.json, sha256 fd55eddb8cacdc90. Prose C051.json, sha256 2dc739eaafd8cd42 |


## 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/)
- [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/)
- [part 2](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/part-2-five-failure-categories/)
- [C019](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-4-c019/)
- [C052](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-5-c052/)
- [C053](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-5-c053/)
- [C122](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-2-c122/)
- [C013](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-4-c013/)
- [C018](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-4-c018/)
- [C080](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-4-c080/)
- [C098](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-2-c098/)
- [C103](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-2-c103/)
- [C108](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-2-c108/)
- [C115](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-2-c115/)
- [C116](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-2-c116/)
- [C123](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-2-c123/)
- [C124](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-2-c124/)
- [C126](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-2-c126/)
- [C131](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-2-c131/)
- [C136](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-2-c136/)
- [C144](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-2-c144/)
- [C145](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-2-c145/)
- [C152](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-2-c152/)
- [C173](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-2-c173/)