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

Use Case

Study Data · Part 1 · Indicator Deep-Dive Analysis

# Use Case

Indicator ENG:Use Case · By Phil Hatch · Akholi · October 9, 2026

← Study Data← Previous indicatorNext indicator →

## On this page

25 sectionsIndicator SpecificationSummary of FindingsDistribution of Recorded ValuesCoverage 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 Indicators of the Four PartsCo-Occurring Indicators and ThemesInterpretation of the DataLimitationsDefinitionsSources and Provenance

## Indicator Specification

Table 1. Indicator specificationTable

| Field | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Indicator code | None, an engagement field |
| Question as asked | Use Case |
| Failure category | Not one of the 100 rated indicators |
| Place in the survey | Not a survey item |
| Indicator class | Engagement attribute |
| Indicator type | Engagement attribute, categorical |
| Response scale | Levels: Corporate and back-office functions, Technology engineering and operations, Client servicing and communications, Trade, settlement and reconciliation, Payments, cards and disputes, Credit, underwriting and suitability, Regulatory, audit, tax and legal, Financial crime and client onboarding |
| Answering base | 150 engagements |
| Non-answers | None, the value is recorded for every engagement |
| Written responses coded to the indicator | 33 responses from 33 respondents on 24 engagements (0 primary, 33 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 | 125 engagements | 0.028 | 0.113 |
| Customer satisfaction | Omega squared | 63 engagements | −0.027 | 0.850 |
| Engagement indicator mean | Omega squared | 125 engagements | 0.003 | 0.325 |
| Intent to leave | Omega squared | 125 engagements | 0.031 | 0.155 |

Corporate and back-office functions was the most common process family (47 of 150 engagements, 31.33%), ahead of Technology engineering and operations (35 of 150 engagements, 23.33%). Cancellation ranged from Payments, cards and disputes at the low end (16.67% canceled, n = 12 engagements) to Client servicing and communications at the high end (56.25% canceled, n = 16 engagements), with no difference under test (chi-square 7.48, p 0.113, Cramer's V 0.24, n = 125 engagements). Customer satisfaction on active engagements ranged from Corporate and back-office functions (mean 63.5, n = 28 engagements) to Payments, cards and disputes (mean 65.6, n = 10 engagements), with no difference under test (Welch F 0.16, p 0.850, omega squared −0.027, n = 63 engagements). The engagement indicator mean was lowest for Trade, settlement and reconciliation (mean 3.6, n = 15 engagements) and highest for Payments, cards and disputes (mean 4.4, n = 12 engagements), with no difference under test (Welch F 1.20, p 0.325, omega squared 0.003, n = 125 engagements). Intent to leave was lowest for Payments, cards and disputes (mean 5.2, n = 12 engagements) and highest for Trade, settlement and reconciliation (mean 7.5, n = 15 engagements), with no difference under test (Welch F 1.77, p 0.155, omega squared 0.031, n = 125 engagements). The process family mix differed after Holm control by outsourcing model (chi-square 157.43, Holm p < 0.001, Cramer's V 0.59), by institution type (chi-square 79.87, Holm p 0.036, Cramer's V 0.28), and by class of work (chi-square 78.91, Holm p < 0.001, Cramer's V 0.73).

The indicator had 33 written responses coded to it, from 33 of 850 respondents on 24 of 150 engagements. Negative responses numbered 6 of the 33 scored responses (18.18%). No response carried the strongest negative score, −10. Every response was a secondary response.

## Distribution of Recorded Values

Table 3. Distribution of recorded valuesTable

| Answer | Engagements | Share of answered (base 150) | Cumulative share | Engagements with at least one | Share of 150 engagements | Distressed |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Corporate and back-office functions | 47 | 31.33% | 31.33% | Not applicable, engagement level | Not applicable, engagement level | Not applicable |
| Technology engineering and operations | 35 | 23.33% | 54.67% | Not applicable, engagement level | Not applicable, engagement level | Not applicable |
| Client servicing and communications | 16 | 10.67% | 65.33% | Not applicable, engagement level | Not applicable, engagement level | Not applicable |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | 15 | 10.00% | 75.33% | Not applicable, engagement level | Not applicable, engagement level | Not applicable |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 12 | 8.00% | 83.33% | Not applicable, engagement level | Not applicable, engagement level | Not applicable |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | 9 | 6.00% | 89.33% | Not applicable, engagement level | Not applicable, engagement level | Not applicable |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | 9 | 6.00% | 95.33% | Not applicable, engagement level | Not applicable, engagement level | Not applicable |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | 7 | 4.67% | 100.00% | Not applicable, engagement level | Not applicable, engagement level | Not applicable |
| Answered, total | 150 | 100.00% | | Not applicable, engagement level | Not applicable, engagement level |

The value was recorded once per engagement, so every share counts out of 150 engagements.

Distressed is not applicable, because the answer has no good or bad end on a scale.

## Coverage and Origin of Written Responses

Figure 1. Written responses coded to the indicator, by the question answered and by written score (n = 33 responses)ExhibitNote: The indicator is an engagement field with no survey section of its own. Every written response coded to it therefore answered a question in a survey section and was counted as a secondary response, coded to the indicator because its 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. C030 asked: “What are the top 3 things that you love most about your job?” C114 asked: “Add any comments on the customer organization that the ratings in this section do not capture.” C135 asked: “Add any comments on your employer that the ratings in this section do not capture.” C177 asked: “Add any comments on the agentic AI tools 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 | 0 | 0 | 0 | a | | | |
| Secondary | 33 | 33 | 24 | 6 of 33 (18.18%) | 0 of 33 (0.00%) | 27 of 33 (81.82%) | 3.3 |
| All responses | 33 | 33 | 24 | 6 of 33 (18.18%) | 0 of 33 (0.00%) | 27 of 33 (81.82%) | 3.3 |

Note: a No scored responses.

All 33 responses were secondary responses. The secondary responses came from 33 respondents on 24 engagements, in answer to 5 questions (most often C030 with 26 responses, C114 with 2 responses, C135 with 2 responses and C177 with 2 responses). Among the Part 1 indicators with 30 or more scored responses, the secondary share of the indicator ranked 1 of 6 from the highest, tied with 4 other indicators. The median secondary share was 100.00% across the 6 indicators.

## Distribution of Written Sentiment

Figure 2. Distribution of written sentiment (n = 33 scored responses)ExhibitNote: Column height is the share of all scored responses. Labels give the count and the share.
Table 5. Summary statistics of written sentimentTable

| Statistic | Value | Basis |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Mean written score | 3.3 | 95% CI 1.8 to 4.6, cluster bootstrap by engagement, 10,000 draws, n = 33 responses |
| Median written score | 5.0 | n = 33 responses |
| Negative responses | 6 of 33 (18.18%) | 95% CI 6.45% to 32.35% of 33 responses, cluster bootstrap by engagement |
| Strongest negative responses (−10) | 0 of 33 (0.00%) | Statements of totality, constancy or serious harm |
| Positive responses | 27 of 33 (81.82%) | +5 or +10 |
| Net balance | 63.64 percentage points | Share positive minus share negative, base 33 responses |
| Respondent-level mean | 3.3 | Mean of each respondent's own mean written score, n = 33 respondents |

The indicator has no good or bad end. Under the coding rulebook's rule for such indicators, the written score records the effect each response states on the engagement or on the respondent. The engagement field is “ENG:Use Case.” The frequency, scope and consequence a response states set the strength of its score. A score of +10 marks a response that describes “this attribute of the engagement as helping the engagement at its best.” A score of −10 marks a response that describes “this attribute as harming the engagement at its worst . . . .”

Of the 33 scored responses, 6 (18.18%) were negative, none carried the strongest negative score and 27 (81.82%) were positive. The responses had a mean written score of 3.3 (95% CI 1.8 to 4.6, n = 33 responses on 24 engagements).

## Descriptive Statistics by Segment

Table 6a. Descriptive statistics by segment, part 1 of 2Table

| Segment | Base | Answered | Answer rate | Engagements | Corporate and back-office functions, share | Technology engineering and operations, share |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Study set | 150 | 150 | 100.00% of 150 | 150 | 31.33% | 23.33% |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | |
| CXM | 42 | 42 | 100.00% of 42 | 42 | 47.62% | 9.52% |
| ITO | 40 | 40 | 100.00% of 40 | 40 | 0.00% | 77.50% |
| BPO | 37 | 37 | 100.00% of 37 | 37 | 35.14% | 0.00% |
| KPO | 31 | 31 | 100.00% of 31 | 31 | 45.16% | 0.00% |
| Institution type | | | | | | |
| Asset management | 24 | 24 | 100.00% of 24 | 24 | 41.67% | 25.00% |
| Wealth management and private banking | 23 | 23 | 100.00% of 23 | 23 | 21.74% | 21.74% |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | 19 | 19 | 100.00% of 19 | 19 | 31.58% | 31.58% |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | 14 | 14 | 100.00% of 14 | 14 | 21.43% | 14.29% |
| Commercial and business banking | 13 | 13 | 100.00% of 13 | 13 | 23.08% | 15.38% |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | 13 | 13 | 100.00% of 13 | 13 | 15.38% | 30.77% |
| Credit card and payments issuing | 12 | 12 | 100.00% of 12 | 12 | 33.33% | 16.67% |
| Retail and consumer banking | 12 | 12 | 100.00% of 12 | 12 | 33.33% | 25.00% |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | 11 | 11 | 100.00% of 11 | 11 | 54.55% | 18.18% |
| Private equity and private capital | 9 | 9 | 9 of 9 | 9 | 4 | 3 |
| Process family | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | Identity, the segment is this indicator |
| Technology engineering and operations | Identity, the segment is this indicator |
| Client servicing and communications | Identity, the segment is this indicator |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | Identity, the segment is this indicator |
| Payments, cards and disputes | Identity, the segment is this indicator |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | Identity, the segment is this indicator |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | Identity, the segment is this indicator |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | Identity, the segment is this indicator |
| Class of work | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | 76 | 76 | 100.00% of 76 | 76 | 11.84% | 9.21% |
| Corporate Functional | 74 | 74 | 100.00% of 74 | 74 | 51.35% | 37.84% |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | 31 | 31 | 100.00% of 31 | 31 | 22.58% | 32.26% |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 43 | 43 | 100.00% of 43 | 43 | 37.21% | 25.58% |
| Active, Production | 20 | 20 | 100.00% of 20 | 20 | 25.00% | 20.00% |
| Canceled | 56 | 56 | 100.00% of 56 | 56 | 33.93% | 17.86% |

Table 6b. Descriptive statistics by segment, part 2 of 2Table

| Segment | Client servicing and communications, share | Trade, settlement and reconciliation, share | Payments, cards and disputes, share | Credit, underwriting and suitability, share | Regulatory, audit, tax and legal, share |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Study set | 10.67% | 10.00% | 8.00% | 6.00% | 6.00% |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | |
| CXM | 26.19% | 0.00% | 9.52% | 2.38% | 2.38% |
| ITO | 7.50% | 2.50% | 5.00% | 0.00% | 5.00% |
| BPO | 2.70% | 29.73% | 16.22% | 5.41% | 0.00% |
| KPO | 3.23% | 9.68% | 0.00% | 19.35% | 19.35% |
| Institution type | | | | | |
| Asset management | 8.33% | 20.83% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Wealth management and private banking | 21.74% | 8.70% | 4.35% | 8.70% | 13.04% |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | 5.26% | 21.05% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 5.26% |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | 35.71% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 21.43% | 7.14% |
| Commercial and business banking | 15.38% | 0.00% | 15.38% | 15.38% | 7.69% |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | 0.00% | 15.38% | 15.38% | 0.00% | 7.69% |
| Credit card and payments issuing | 0.00% | 0.00% | 41.67% | 8.33% | 0.00% |
| Retail and consumer banking | 8.33% | 0.00% | 16.67% | 8.33% | 8.33% |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | 0.00% | 9.09% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 9.09% |
| Private equity and private capital | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Process family | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | Identity, the segment is this indicator |
| Technology engineering and operations | Identity, the segment is this indicator |
| Client servicing and communications | Identity, the segment is this indicator |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | Identity, the segment is this indicator |
| Payments, cards and disputes | Identity, the segment is this indicator |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | Identity, the segment is this indicator |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | Identity, the segment is this indicator |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | Identity, the segment is this indicator |
| Class of work | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | 19.74% | 17.11% | 15.79% | 11.84% | 5.26% |
| Corporate Functional | 1.35% | 2.70% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 6.76% |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | 9.68% | 3.23% | 16.13% | 12.90% | 3.23% |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 4.65% | 9.30% | 4.65% | 6.98% | 6.98% |
| Active, Production | 10.00% | 10.00% | 15.00% | 5.00% | 5.00% |
| Canceled | 16.07% | 14.29% | 3.57% | 1.79% | 7.14% |

Table 7. Descriptive statistics by segment, remaining answer levelsTable

| Segment | Base | Answered | Answer rate | Engagements | Financial crime and client onboarding, share |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Study set | 150 | 150 | 100.00% of 150 | 150 | 4.67% |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | |
| CXM | 42 | 42 | 100.00% of 42 | 42 | 2.38% |
| ITO | 40 | 40 | 100.00% of 40 | 40 | 2.50% |
| BPO | 37 | 37 | 100.00% of 37 | 37 | 10.81% |
| KPO | 31 | 31 | 100.00% of 31 | 31 | 3.23% |
| Institution type | | | | | |
| Asset management | 24 | 24 | 100.00% of 24 | 24 | 4.17% |
| Wealth management and private banking | 23 | 23 | 100.00% of 23 | 23 | 0.00% |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | 19 | 19 | 100.00% of 19 | 19 | 5.26% |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | 14 | 14 | 100.00% of 14 | 14 | 0.00% |
| Commercial and business banking | 13 | 13 | 100.00% of 13 | 13 | 7.69% |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | 13 | 13 | 100.00% of 13 | 13 | 15.38% |
| Credit card and payments issuing | 12 | 12 | 100.00% of 12 | 12 | 0.00% |
| Retail and consumer banking | 12 | 12 | 100.00% of 12 | 12 | 0.00% |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | 11 | 11 | 100.00% of 11 | 11 | 9.09% |
| Private equity and private capital | 9 | 9 | 9 of 9 | 9 | 1 |
| Process family | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | Identity, the segment is this indicator |
| Technology engineering and operations | Identity, the segment is this indicator |
| Client servicing and communications | Identity, the segment is this indicator |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | Identity, the segment is this indicator |
| Payments, cards and disputes | Identity, the segment is this indicator |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | Identity, the segment is this indicator |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | Identity, the segment is this indicator |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | Identity, the segment is this indicator |
| Class of work | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | 76 | 76 | 100.00% of 76 | 76 | 9.21% |
| Corporate Functional | 74 | 74 | 100.00% of 74 | 74 | 0.00% |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | 31 | 31 | 100.00% of 31 | 31 | 0.00% |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 43 | 43 | 100.00% of 43 | 43 | 4.65% |
| Active, Production | 20 | 20 | 100.00% of 20 | 20 | 10.00% |
| Canceled | 56 | 56 | 100.00% of 56 | 56 | 5.36% |

Shares are of the answered engagements in each row, which is the base beside them. A row under 10 prints counts in place of shares.

## Tests of Difference Between Segments

Table 8. Tests of difference between segmentsTable

| Segment family | Unit | Chi-square | df | p | Holm p | Cramer's V | Test for p | Levels left out |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Outsourcing model | Engagement | 157.43 | 21 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.59 | Monte Carlo, simulated | None |
| Institution type | Engagement | 79.87 | 56 | 0.018 | 0.036 | 0.28 | Monte Carlo, simulated | a |
| Process family | Identity, the segment is this indicator |
| Class of work | Engagement | 78.91 | 7 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.73 | Monte Carlo, simulated | None |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | Engagement | 22.40 | 21 | 0.383 | 0.383 | 0.22 | Monte Carlo, simulated | None |

Note: a Private equity and private capital, n = 9.

Engagement families were tested on engagement answers, and respondent role and vendor type were tested on respondents. Outsourcing model differed in the answer mix after Holm control (chi-square 157.43, Holm p < 0.001, Cramer's V 0.59). Institution type differed in the answer mix after Holm control (chi-square 79.87, Holm p 0.036, Cramer's V 0.28). Class of work differed in the answer mix after Holm control (chi-square 78.91, Holm p < 0.001, Cramer's V 0.73). No difference held after Holm control for engagement status and lifecycle stage.

## Written Sentiment by Segment

Figure 3. 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.
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 | 11 | 11 | 6 | 5.0 | 0 of 11 (0.00%) | 0 of 11 (0.00%) |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 11 | 11 | 7 | 2.3 | 3 of 11 (27.27%) | 0 of 11 (0.00%) |
| Active, Production | 1 | 1 | 1 | ‡ | 0 of 1 | 0 of 1 |
| Canceled | 10 | 10 | 10 | 2.0 | 3 of 10 (30.00%) | 0 of 10 (0.00%) |
| Respondent role | | | | | | |
| Individual Contributor | 22 | 22 | 17 | 2.7 | 5 of 22 (22.73%) | 0 of 22 (0.00%) |
| Engagement Manager | 8 | 8 | 8 | ‡ | 1 of 8 | 0 of 8 |
| Portfolio Director | 3 | 3 | 3 | ‡ | 0 of 3 | 0 of 3 |
| Customer Management Executive | 0 | 0 | 0 | No responses | | |

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

Scored responses came from 6 engagements in the Active, Build-Out group, 7 engagements in the Active, Transition/Cut-Over group, 1 engagement in the Active, Production group and 10 engagements in the Canceled 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 2.90, df 2, p = 0.235, n = 23 engagements). The test compared the Active, Build-Out group, 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 0 of 1 in the Active, Production 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 engagement managers, negative responses numbered 1 of 8. Among portfolio directors, negative responses numbered 0 of 3.

## 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.

The measure by the engagement's recorded answer.

Table 10. Association with cancellation rate by answer levelTable

| Answer level | Engagements | Canceled | Cancellation rate |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Corporate and back-office functions | 47 | 19 | 40.43% |
| Technology engineering and operations | 35 | 10 | 28.57% |
| Client servicing and communications | 16 | 9 | 56.25% |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | 15 | 8 | 53.33% |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 12 | 2 | 16.67% |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | 9 | 1 | ‡ |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | 9 | 4 | ‡ |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | 7 | 3 | ‡ |

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

The test across answer levels, in the study set and inside each segment. Levels under 10 engagements were left out of each test.

Table 11. 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 | 125 | 7.48 | 4 | 0.114 | 0.456 | 0.24 | Monte Carlo, simulated |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | |
| CXM | 31 | 0.09 | 1 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.05 | Fisher exact |
| ITO | Fewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements |
| BPO | 24 | 0.12 | 1 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.07 | Fisher exact |
| KPO | Fewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements |
| Institution type | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | Fewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements |
| Wealth management and private banking | Fewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | Fewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | Fewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements |
| Commercial and business banking | Fewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | Fewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements |
| Credit card and payments issuing | Fewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements |
| Retail and consumer banking | Fewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | Fewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements |
| Private equity and private capital | 9 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Process family | | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | Identity, the segment is this indicator |
| Technology engineering and operations | Identity, the segment is this indicator |
| Client servicing and communications | Identity, the segment is this indicator |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | Identity, the segment is this indicator |
| Payments, cards and disputes | Identity, the segment is this indicator |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | Identity, the segment is this indicator |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | Identity, the segment is this indicator |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | Identity, the segment is this indicator |
| Class of work | | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | 40 | 6.54 | 2 | 0.038 | 0.190 | 0.40 | chi-square |
| Corporate Functional | 66 | 1.28 | 1 | 0.259 | 0.776 | 0.14 | chi-square |
| 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 10. No statistic is reported.

Cancellation in the study set did not differ across answer levels (Monte Carlo, simulated, chi-square 7.48, p 0.113, n = 125 engagements).

## 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.

The measure by the engagement's recorded answer.

Table 12. Association with customer satisfaction by answer levelTable

| Answer level | Engagements | Mean of the measure | SD |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Corporate and back-office functions | 28 | 63.5 | 12.4 |
| Technology engineering and operations | 25 | 65.1 | 11.0 |
| Client servicing and communications | 7 | ‡ | |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | 7 | ‡ | |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 10 | 65.6 | 11.5 |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | 8 | ‡ | |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | 5 | ‡ | |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | 4 | ‡ | |

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

The test across answer levels, in the study set and inside each segment. Levels under 10 engagements were left out of each test.

Table 13. Association with customer satisfaction, tests across answer levels by segmentTable

| Segment | Engagements | Welch F | df | p | Holm p | Omega squared | 90% CI |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Study set | 63 | 0.16 | 2, 25.6 | 0.850 | 1.000 | −0.027 | 0.000 to 0.038 |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | |
| CXM | Fewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements |
| ITO | Fewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements |
| BPO | Fewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements |
| KPO | Fewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements |
| Institution type | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | Fewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements |
| Wealth management and private banking | Fewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | Fewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | 9 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Commercial and business banking | 9 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | Fewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements |
| 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 | Identity, the segment is this indicator |
| Technology engineering and operations | Identity, the segment is this indicator |
| Client servicing and communications | Identity, the segment is this indicator |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | Identity, the segment is this indicator |
| Payments, cards and disputes | Identity, the segment is this indicator |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | Identity, the segment is this indicator |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | Identity, the segment is this indicator |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | Identity, the segment is this indicator |
| Class of work | | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | Fewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements |
| Corporate Functional | 42 | 0.01 | 1, 40.0 | 0.906 | 1.000 | −0.024 | 0.000 to 0.029 |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | Fewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 27 | 0.04 | 1, 23.7 | 0.837 | 1.000 | −0.037 | † |
| Active, Production | Fewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements |
| Canceled | no clean estimate, canceled engagements fall outside the active population |

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

The measure in the study set did not differ across answer levels (Welch F 0.16, p 0.850, n = 63 engagements). The clean estimate ran inside active engagements only.

## 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.

The measure by the engagement's recorded answer.

Table 14. Association with the engagement indicator mean by answer levelTable

| Answer level | Engagements | Mean of the measure | SD |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Corporate and back-office functions | 47 | 3.9 | 1.6 |
| Technology engineering and operations | 35 | 4.3 | 1.3 |
| Client servicing and communications | 16 | 3.7 | 1.6 |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | 15 | 3.6 | 1.4 |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 12 | 4.4 | 1.3 |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | 9 | ‡ | |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | 9 | ‡ | |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | 7 | ‡ | |

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

The test across answer levels, in the study set and inside each segment. Levels under 10 engagements were left out of each test.

Table 15. 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 | 125 | 1.20 | 4, 39.7 | 0.325 | 1.000 | 0.003 | 0.000 to 0.074 |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | |
| CXM | 31 | 0.03 | 1, 19.8 | 0.856 | 1.000 | −0.032 | 0.000 to 0.066 |
| ITO | Fewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements |
| BPO | 24 | 0.20 | 1, 20.2 | 0.663 | 1.000 | −0.034 | † |
| KPO | Fewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements |
| Institution type | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | Fewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements |
| Wealth management and private banking | Fewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | Fewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | Fewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements |
| Commercial and business banking | Fewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | Fewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements |
| Credit card and payments issuing | Fewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements |
| Retail and consumer banking | Fewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | Fewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements |
| Private equity and private capital | 9 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Process family | | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | Identity, the segment is this indicator |
| Technology engineering and operations | Identity, the segment is this indicator |
| Client servicing and communications | Identity, the segment is this indicator |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | Identity, the segment is this indicator |
| Payments, cards and disputes | Identity, the segment is this indicator |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | Identity, the segment is this indicator |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | Identity, the segment is this indicator |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | Identity, the segment is this indicator |
| Class of work | | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | 40 | 1.69 | 2, 24.6 | 0.205 | 1.000 | 0.022 | 0.000 to 0.198 |
| Corporate Functional | 66 | 0.88 | 1, 63.7 | 0.353 | 1.000 | −0.003 | 0.000 to 0.089 |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | Fewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 27 | 0.00 | 1, 23.4 | 0.967 | 1.000 | −0.038 | † |
| Active, Production | Fewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements |
| Canceled | 29 | 1.71 | 1, 19.9 | 0.206 | 1.000 | 0.021 | † |

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

The measure in the study set did not differ across answer levels (Welch F 1.20, p 0.325, n = 125 engagements).

## 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.

The measure by the engagement's recorded answer.

Table 16. Association with intent to leave by answer levelTable

| Answer level | Engagements | Mean of the measure | SD |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Corporate and back-office functions | 47 | 6.9 | 2.6 |
| Technology engineering and operations | 35 | 6.6 | 2.1 |
| Client servicing and communications | 16 | 7.4 | 2.4 |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | 15 | 7.5 | 2.2 |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 12 | 5.2 | 2.6 |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | 9 | ‡ | |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | 9 | ‡ | |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | 7 | ‡ | |

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

The test across answer levels, in the study set and inside each segment. Levels under 10 engagements were left out of each test.

Table 17. 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 | 125 | 1.77 | 4, 39.0 | 0.155 | 0.697 | 0.031 | 0.000 to 0.116 |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | |
| CXM | 31 | 0.02 | 1, 21.2 | 0.885 | 1.000 | −0.033 | 0.000 to 0.051 |
| ITO | Fewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements |
| BPO | 24 | 0.18 | 1, 21.9 | 0.679 | 1.000 | −0.036 | † |
| KPO | Fewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements |
| Institution type | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | Fewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements |
| Wealth management and private banking | Fewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | Fewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | Fewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements |
| Commercial and business banking | Fewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | Fewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements |
| Credit card and payments issuing | Fewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements |
| Retail and consumer banking | Fewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | Fewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements |
| Private equity and private capital | 9 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Process family | | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | Identity, the segment is this indicator |
| Technology engineering and operations | Identity, the segment is this indicator |
| Client servicing and communications | Identity, the segment is this indicator |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | Identity, the segment is this indicator |
| Payments, cards and disputes | Identity, the segment is this indicator |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | Identity, the segment is this indicator |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | Identity, the segment is this indicator |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | Identity, the segment is this indicator |
| Class of work | | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | 40 | 3.53 | 2, 24.0 | 0.045 | 0.273 | 0.124 | 0.009 to 0.320 |
| Corporate Functional | 66 | 0.54 | 1, 63.7 | 0.465 | 1.000 | −0.008 | 0.000 to 0.077 |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | Fewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 27 | 2.34 | 1, 23.8 | 0.139 | 0.697 | 0.042 | † |
| Active, Production | Fewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements |
| Canceled | 29 | 9.32 | 1, 21.9 | 0.006 | 0.041 | 0.199 | † |

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

The measure in the study set did not differ across answer levels (Welch F 1.77, p 0.155, n = 125 engagements).

## Association of Written Sentiment with the Study Measures

Table 18. Written sentiment and the study measuresTable

| Comparison | With a negative response | Without a negative response | Test | Statistic | p |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Cancellation rate | 3 of 6 engagements | 53 of 144 engagements (36.81%) | Fisher exact | | 0.672 |
| Customer satisfaction, active engagements | 3 engagements | Mean 64.13%, n = 91 engagements | ‡ | | |
| Engagement mean written score and cancellation | | | Point-biserial r | r = −0.21, n = 24 engagements | 0.333 |
| Respondent mean written score and intent to leave | | | Spearman rho | rho = 0.02, n = 33 respondents | 0.921 |

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 144 other engagements, of which 126 had no scored written response coded to the indicator and 18 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 6 engagements with a negative response, against 53 of the 144 other engagements (36.81%). The difference did not reach significance at 0.05 (Fisher exact p = 0.672). The customer satisfaction contrast was not computed, because only 3 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 = −0.21, p = 0.333, n = 24 engagements). The association of the respondent mean written score with intent to leave did not reach significance at 0.05 (rho = 0.02, p = 0.921, n = 33 respondents). None of the three outcome comparisons reached significance at 0.05. 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 19. 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 | 125 | 0.028 | 0.113 | No | 2 |
| Customer satisfaction | Omega squared | 63 | −0.027 | 0.850 | Yes | 4 |
| Engagement indicator mean | Omega squared | 125 | 0.003 | 0.325 | Yes | 3 |
| Intent to leave | Omega squared | 125 | 0.031 | 0.155 | No | 1 |

Steiger's z compares two correlations, and a categorical answer yields an effect size across levels rather than a correlation, so the pairs are not tested.

## Clustering and Effective Sample Size

Not applicable. The field was recorded once per engagement, so every respondent in an engagement shared one value.

## 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 | 125 | 0.028 | Omega squared < 0.090 | 0.110 | No | 0.80 | 0.090 |
| Customer satisfaction | 63 | −0.027 | Omega squared < 0.090 | 0.009 | Yes | 0.58 | 0.139 |
| Engagement indicator mean | 125 | 0.003 | Omega squared < 0.090 | 0.025 | Yes | 0.80 | 0.090 |
| Intent to leave | 125 | 0.031 | Omega squared < 0.090 | 0.123 | No | 0.80 | 0.090 |

The bound is the ruled |r| < 0.30 expressed as variance explained (V15-R22). Equivalent to zero: customer satisfaction and engagement indicator mean.

## Robustness Checks

Table 21. Robustness checksTable

| Check | Measure | Primary p | Check p | Check statistic | Conclusion holds |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Kruskal-Wallis in place of Welch F | Customer satisfaction | 0.850 | 0.943 | 0.12 | Yes |
| Kruskal-Wallis in place of Welch F | Engagement indicator mean | 0.325 | 0.255 | 5.33 | Yes |
| Kruskal-Wallis in place of Welch F | Intent to leave | 0.155 | 0.060 | 9.05 | Yes |
| Active engagements only | Engagement indicator mean | 0.325 | 0.894 | 0.11 | Yes |
| Active engagements only | Intent to leave | 0.155 | 0.365 | 1.05 | Yes |

Every check held. A check holds when its test lands on the same side of 0.05 as the primary test.

## Measure Independence and Part-Whole Correction

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

## Comparison with the Study Norm

Not applicable. A categorical field has no signed correlation, so it has no profile. Its per-level means carry the comparison.

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

Figure 4. Share of negative written responses, indicators of the four Parts with 30 or more scored responses (n = 101 indicators)ExhibitNote: 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 peer set comprised 101 indicators of the four Parts with 30 or more scored responses. The indicator was within the peer set. Its share of negative responses ranked 95 of 101 from the highest. Its mean written score (3.3, n = 33 responses) ranked 97 of 101 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 5. Other indicators and themes coded in the same written responses (n = 33 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 33 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. C018: “How happy are you with your current job?” C080: “My manager is effective.” C084: “My manager cares about the larger team.” C123: “Rate the adequacy of your employer's investment in training its workforce.” C136: “Rate how effectively the customer and vendor jointly manage this engagement now that agents perform part of the work.” C157: “Rate the factual reliability of the AI tools' outputs on this engagement before any human review.” C173: “Rate the tools' ability to explain and evidence how each output was produced, at the depth an audit requires.”

The responses coded to the indicator were most often also coded to “How happy are you with your current job?” (C018, 6 responses). The second most frequent co-coded indicator was “My manager is effective” (C080, 4 responses). The most frequent theme of the coding rulebook in the same responses was “Team or colleagues” (15 responses).

## Interpretation of the Data

Payments, cards and disputes sat at the favorable end of every study measure, though no test separated the process families. Every robustness check run on this field held (5 of 5 checks). Process family sorted engagements by outsourcing model, institution type, and class of work, and it showed no association with the four study measures.

The indicator is an engagement field, so the written responses were not set against a rating. Written responses were voluntary. They recorded what the respondents who wrote reported, and how common it was is measured by the recorded values.

## 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 tests on cancellation, the engagement indicator mean and intent to leave left out Credit, underwriting and suitability, Regulatory, audit, tax and legal, and Financial crime and client onboarding (n = 9, n = 9, n = 7 engagements in each). The customer satisfaction test left out Client servicing and communications, Trade, settlement and reconciliation, and the same three families (n = 7, n = 7, n = 8, n = 5, n = 4 engagements).

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. Intervals for written sentiment used a bootstrap by engagement. Coding was performed by AI coders under a fixed rulebook. Agreement on whether a response was coded to the indicator rested on 4 responses second-coded under rulebook 0.5, with the coders agreeing on 2 of 4. Agreement on the score rested on 5 responses second-scored under rulebook 0.6, with the scores agreeing in 5 of 5. These bases of second-coded responses are too small for an indicator-level alpha.

## Definitions

Table 22. DefinitionsTable

| Term | Definition |
| --- | --- |
| Response scale | As recorded, shown in Table 1. The indicator is not a rating, so no distressed range is defined. |
| Answering base | The engagements on which the value is recorded. |
| Non-answers | None. The value is recorded for every engagement. |
| Indicator class | Engagement attribute: a property of the engagement rather than of the respondent. |
| 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 | The indicator is an engagement field with no survey section of its own. Every written response coded to it therefore answered a question in a survey section and was counted as a secondary response, coded to the indicator because its 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 23. Sources and provenanceTable

| Item | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Study data | Study Data.xlsx, Engagements sheet, sha256 219eba0457274d04 |
| Statistics engine | compute_statistics.py, sha256 738319eef764602b |
| Statistics record | Computed Statistics.json, record ENG:Use Case, 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 | 765 of 765 |
| 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 | ENG_Use_Case.qa.json, sha256 09afb1a8f9f7eddc. ENG_Use_Case.wfacts.json, sha256 e6577fdebe30a3bb. Prose ENG_Use_Case.json, sha256 57493dcf33efa43a |


## 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/)
- [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/)
- [C084](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-4-c084/)
- [C123](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-2-c123/)
- [C136](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-2-c136/)
- [C157](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-2-c157/)
- [C173](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-2-c173/)