Source: https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-1-c032/
Author: Phil Hatch
Publisher: Akholi

What is the outsourcing type?

Study Data · Part 1 · Indicator Deep-Dive Analysis

# What is the outsourcing type?

Indicator C032 · By Phil Hatch · Akholi · October 9, 2026

← Study Data← Previous indicatorNext indicator →

## On this page

22 sectionsIndicator SpecificationSummary of FindingsDistribution of ResponsesCoverage and Origin of Written ResponsesDistribution of Written SentimentDescriptive Statistics by SegmentTests of Difference Between SegmentsAssociation with Cancellation RateAssociation with Customer SatisfactionAssociation with the Engagement Indicator MeanAssociation with Intent to LeaveComparison of Associations Across the Four MeasuresClustering and Effective Sample SizeEquivalence Tests of Null ResultsRobustness ChecksMeasure Independence and Part-Whole CorrectionComparison with the Study NormCo-Occurring Indicators and ThemesInterpretation of the DataLimitationsDefinitionsSources and Provenance

## Indicator Specification

Table 1. Indicator specificationTable

| Field | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Indicator code | C032 |
| Question as asked | What is the outsourcing type? |
| Failure category | Not one of the 100 rated indicators |
| Place in the survey | Engagement Details > 2.1 Engagement Identification > T1_FI Routing Chain |
| Indicator class | Engagement attribute |
| Indicator type | Categorical |
| Response scale | Levels: CXM, ITO, BPO, KPO |
| Answering base | 849 of 850 respondents gave one of the listed answers, across 150 of 150 engagements. None answered I do not know or I prefer to not answer |
| Non-answers | I do not know 0, I prefer to not answer 0, blank 1 |
| Engagements sheet twin | Outsourcing Type |
| Written responses coded to the indicator | 1 response from 1 respondent on 1 engagement (0 primary, 1 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 | 150 engagements | −0.020 | 0.994 |
| Customer satisfaction | Omega squared | 94 engagements | −0.004 | 0.510 |
| Engagement indicator mean | Omega squared | 150 engagements | −0.003 | 0.444 |
| Intent to leave | Omega squared | 150 engagements | −0.011 | 0.703 |

Respondents named ITO most often as the outsourcing type (244 of 849 respondents, 28.74%) and KPO least often (165 of 849 respondents, 19.43%). Cancellation ranged from CXM at the low end (35.71% canceled, n = 42 engagements) to KPO at the high end (38.71% canceled, n = 31 engagements), with no difference under test (chi-square 0.08, p 0.994, Cramer's V 0.02, n = 150 engagements). Customer satisfaction on active engagements ranged from KPO at the low end (mean 60.6, n = 19 engagements) to BPO at the high end (mean 66.3, n = 23 engagements), with no difference under test (Welch F 0.78, p 0.510, omega squared −0.004, n = 94 engagements). The engagement indicator mean was lowest for BPO (mean 3.7, n = 37 engagements) and highest for CXM (mean 4.2, n = 42 engagements), with no difference under test (Welch F 0.90, p 0.444, omega squared −0.003, n = 150 engagements). Intent to leave was lowest for CXM (mean 6.5, n = 42 engagements) and highest for ITO (mean 7.1, n = 40 engagements), with no difference under test (Welch F 0.47, p 0.703, omega squared −0.011, n = 150 engagements). The answer mix differed after Holm control by process family (chi-square 121.20, Holm p < 0.001, Cramer's V 0.57) and by vendor type (chi-square 536.53, Holm p < 0.001, Cramer's V 0.46).

One written response was coded to the indicator, from 1 of 850 respondents on 1 of 150 engagements. The single scored response was negative, with a score of −5. It was a secondary response, written in answer to a question outside the indicator's own survey section.

## Distribution of Responses

Table 3. Distribution of responses, respondent levelTable

| Answer | Respondents | Share of answered (base 849) | Cumulative share | Engagements with at least one | Share of 150 engagements | Distressed |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| CXM | 231 | 27.21% | 27.21% | 42 | 28.00% | Not applicable |
| ITO | 244 | 28.74% | 55.95% | 40 | 26.67% | Not applicable |
| BPO | 209 | 24.62% | 80.57% | 37 | 24.67% | Not applicable |
| KPO | 165 | 19.43% | 100.00% | 31 | 20.67% | Not applicable |
| Answered, total | 849 | 100.00% | | 150 | 100.00% | |

A categorical answer has no engagement mean. Each engagement took its respondents' plurality answer, and tied engagements were left out. An answer was assigned to 150 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 = 1 response)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. C135 asked: “Add any comments on your employer 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 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 of 1 | 0 of 1 | 0 of 1 | ‡ |
| All responses | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 of 1 | 0 of 1 | 0 of 1 | ‡ |

Note: ‡ Base under 10. No statistic is reported. a No scored responses.

The single response coded to the indicator was a secondary response. The response was written in answer to C135, a question outside the indicator's own survey section.

## Distribution of Written Sentiment

Figure 2. Distribution of written sentiment (n = 1 scored response)ExhibitNote: Column height is the count of scored responses. With fewer than 10 scored responses, labels give counts only.

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 survey question is “What is the outsourcing type?” 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 . . . .”

The distribution was reported as counts only, because fewer than 10 responses carried a score. The single scored response carried a score of −5.

## Descriptive Statistics by Segment

Table 5. Descriptive statistics by segmentTable

| Segment | Base | Answered | Answer rate | Engagements | CXM, share | ITO, share | BPO, share | KPO, share |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Study set | 850 | 849 | 99.88% of 850 | 150 | 27.21% | 28.74% | 24.62% | 19.43% |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | | |
| CXM | Identity, the segment is this indicator |
| ITO | Identity, the segment is this indicator |
| BPO | Identity, the segment is this indicator |
| KPO | Identity, the segment is this indicator |
| Institution type | | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | 132 | 132 | 100.00% of 132 | 24 | 25.76% | 26.52% | 24.24% | 23.48% |
| Wealth management and private banking | 140 | 140 | 100.00% of 140 | 23 | 30.71% | 29.29% | 25.00% | 15.00% |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | 105 | 105 | 100.00% of 105 | 19 | 17.14% | 34.29% | 23.81% | 24.76% |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | 78 | 77 | 98.72% of 78 | 14 | 25.97% | 32.47% | 22.08% | 19.48% |
| Commercial and business banking | 82 | 82 | 100.00% of 82 | 13 | 31.71% | 23.17% | 20.73% | 24.39% |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | 71 | 71 | 100.00% of 71 | 13 | 26.76% | 36.62% | 22.54% | 14.08% |
| Credit card and payments issuing | 73 | 73 | 100.00% of 73 | 12 | 30.14% | 30.14% | 26.03% | 13.70% |
| Retail and consumer banking | 73 | 73 | 100.00% of 73 | 12 | 32.88% | 23.29% | 26.03% | 17.81% |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | 57 | 57 | 100.00% of 57 | 11 | 29.82% | 26.32% | 28.07% | 15.79% |
| Private equity and private capital | 39 | 39 | 100.00% of 39 | 9 | 20.51% | 20.51% | 33.33% | 25.64% |
| Process family | | | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | 248 | 247 | 99.60% of 248 | 47 | 42.91% | 0.00% | 28.74% | 28.34% |
| Technology engineering and operations | 204 | 204 | 100.00% of 204 | 35 | 9.80% | 90.20% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Client servicing and communications | 94 | 94 | 100.00% of 94 | 16 | 67.02% | 20.21% | 6.38% | 6.38% |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | 80 | 80 | 100.00% of 80 | 15 | 0.00% | 6.25% | 72.50% | 21.25% |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 73 | 73 | 100.00% of 73 | 12 | 30.14% | 17.81% | 52.05% | 0.00% |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | 57 | 57 | 100.00% of 57 | 9 | 12.28% | 0.00% | 22.81% | 64.91% |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | 51 | 51 | 100.00% of 51 | 9 | 15.69% | 27.45% | 0.00% | 56.86% |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | 43 | 43 | 100.00% of 43 | 7 | 11.63% | 20.93% | 53.49% | 13.95% |
| Class of work | | | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | 451 | 451 | 100.00% of 451 | 76 | 24.17% | 21.51% | 31.49% | 22.84% |
| Corporate Functional | 399 | 398 | 99.75% of 399 | 74 | 30.65% | 36.93% | 16.83% | 15.58% |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | 175 | 175 | 100.00% of 175 | 31 | 33.14% | 26.86% | 19.43% | 20.57% |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 250 | 249 | 99.60% of 250 | 43 | 27.31% | 29.32% | 25.70% | 17.67% |
| Active, Production | 103 | 103 | 100.00% of 103 | 20 | 25.24% | 27.18% | 29.13% | 18.45% |
| Canceled | 322 | 322 | 100.00% of 322 | 56 | 24.53% | 29.81% | 25.16% | 20.50% |
| Respondent role | | | | | | | | |
| Individual Contributor | 667 | 666 | 99.85% of 667 | 150 | 26.88% | 29.13% | 24.62% | 19.37% |
| Engagement Manager | 150 | 150 | 100.00% of 150 | 150 | 28.00% | 26.67% | 24.67% | 20.67% |
| Portfolio Director | 31 | 31 | 100.00% of 31 | 31 | 32.26% | 29.03% | 22.58% | 16.13% |
| Customer Management Executive | 2 | 2 | 2 of 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Vendor type | | | | | | | | |
| IT services major | 316 | 315 | 99.68% of 316 | 59 | 19.05% | 51.43% | 15.87% | 13.65% |
| BPO specialist | 198 | 198 | 100.00% of 198 | 37 | 46.46% | 0.00% | 43.94% | 9.60% |
| Consulting firm | 117 | 117 | 100.00% of 117 | 23 | 0.00% | 24.79% | 0.00% | 75.21% |
| Boutique or specialist provider | 87 | 87 | 100.00% of 87 | 17 | 58.62% | 13.79% | 27.59% | 0.00% |
| Pure-play agentic AI firm | 75 | 75 | 100.00% of 75 | 14 | 13.33% | 34.67% | 46.67% | 5.33% |
| Not reported, recovered by engagement | 57 | 57 | 100.00% of 57 | 47 | 31.58% | 26.32% | 22.81% | 19.30% |

Shares are of the answered respondents 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 6. 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 | Identity, the segment is this indicator |
| Institution type | Engagement | 2.43 | 24 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.08 | Monte Carlo, simulated | a |
| Process family | Engagement | 121.20 | 12 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.57 | Monte Carlo, simulated | b |
| Class of work | Engagement | 6.93 | 3 | 0.074 | 0.296 | 0.21 | chi-square | None |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | Engagement | 1.11 | 9 | 0.999 | 1.000 | 0.05 | Monte Carlo, simulated | None |
| Respondent role | Respondent | 0.95 | 6 | 0.987 | 1.000 | 0.02 | chi-square | c |
| Vendor type | Respondent | 536.53 | 15 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.46 | chi-square | 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 = 2.

Engagement families were tested on engagement answers, and respondent role and vendor type were tested on respondents. Process family differed in the answer mix after Holm control (chi-square 121.20, Holm p < 0.001, Cramer's V 0.57). Vendor type differed in the answer mix after Holm control (chi-square 536.53, Holm p < 0.001, Cramer's V 0.46). No difference held after Holm control for institution type, class of work, engagement status and lifecycle stage and respondent role.

## 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 assigned answer.

Table 7. Association with cancellation rate by answer levelTable

| Answer level | Engagements | Canceled | Cancellation rate |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| CXM | 42 | 15 | 35.71% |
| ITO | 40 | 15 | 37.50% |
| BPO | 37 | 14 | 37.84% |
| KPO | 31 | 12 | 38.71% |

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

Table 8. 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 | 150 | 0.08 | 3 | 0.994 | 1.000 | 0.02 | chi-square |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | |
| CXM | Identity, the segment is this indicator |
| ITO | Identity, the segment is this indicator |
| BPO | Identity, the segment is this indicator |
| KPO | Identity, the segment is this indicator |
| 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 | 47 | 0.06 | 2 | 0.972 | 1.000 | 0.03 | chi-square |
| Technology engineering and operations | Fewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements |
| Client servicing and communications | Fewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | Fewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements |
| Payments, cards and disputes | Fewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | 9 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | 9 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | 7 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Class of work | | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | 76 | 1.74 | 3 | 0.627 | 1.000 | 0.15 | chi-square |
| Corporate Functional | 74 | 0.85 | 3 | 0.874 | 1.000 | 0.11 | Monte Carlo, simulated |
| 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 (chi-square 0.08, p 0.994, n = 150 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 assigned answer.

Table 9. Association with customer satisfaction by answer levelTable

| Answer level | Engagements | Mean of the measure | SD |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| CXM | 27 | 64.4 | 12.9 |
| ITO | 25 | 64.4 | 10.2 |
| BPO | 23 | 66.3 | 10.5 |
| KPO | 19 | 60.6 | 12.9 |

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

Table 10. Association with customer satisfaction, tests across answer levels by segmentTable

| Segment | Engagements | Welch F | df | p | Holm p | Omega squared | 90% CI |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Study set | 94 | 0.78 | 3, 47.9 | 0.510 | 1.000 | −0.004 | 0.000 to 0.076 |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | |
| CXM | Identity, the segment is this indicator |
| ITO | Identity, the segment is this indicator |
| BPO | Identity, the segment is this indicator |
| KPO | Identity, the segment is this indicator |
| 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 | Fewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements |
| Technology engineering and operations | Fewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements |
| Client servicing and communications | 7 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | 7 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Payments, cards and disputes | Fewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | 8 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | 5 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | 4 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Class of work | | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | 39 | 1.86 | 2, 21.5 | 0.179 | 0.597 | 0.063 | 0.000 to 0.255 |
| Corporate Functional | 32 | 2.21 | 1, 25.1 | 0.149 | 0.597 | 0.040 | 0.000 to 0.241 |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | Fewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 35 | 0.61 | 2, 20.9 | 0.551 | 1.000 | −0.025 | 0.000 to 0.140 |
| 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.

The measure in the study set did not differ across answer levels (Welch F 0.78, p 0.510, n = 94 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 assigned answer.

Table 11. Association with the engagement indicator mean by answer levelTable

| Answer level | Engagements | Mean of the measure | SD |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| CXM | 42 | 4.2 | 1.6 |
| ITO | 40 | 4.1 | 1.3 |
| BPO | 37 | 3.7 | 1.3 |
| KPO | 31 | 4.0 | 1.6 |

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

Table 12. 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 | 150 | 0.90 | 3, 78.2 | 0.444 | 1.000 | −0.003 | 0.000 to 0.049 |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | |
| CXM | Identity, the segment is this indicator |
| ITO | Identity, the segment is this indicator |
| BPO | Identity, the segment is this indicator |
| KPO | Identity, the segment is this indicator |
| 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 | 47 | 0.35 | 2, 27.8 | 0.711 | 1.000 | −0.029 | 0.000 to 0.082 |
| Technology engineering and operations | Fewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements |
| Client servicing and communications | Fewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | Fewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements |
| Payments, cards and disputes | Fewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | 9 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | 9 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | 7 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Class of work | | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | 76 | 0.78 | 3, 38.0 | 0.511 | 1.000 | 0.001 | 0.000 to 0.104 |
| Corporate Functional | 74 | 0.51 | 3, 31.7 | 0.681 | 1.000 | −0.024 | 0.000 to 0.056 |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | Fewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 35 | 1.86 | 2, 21.1 | 0.180 | 0.898 | 0.055 | 0.000 to 0.260 |
| Active, Production | Fewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements |
| Canceled | 56 | 2.53 | 3, 28.0 | 0.078 | 0.466 | 0.055 | 0.000 to 0.211 |

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

The measure in the study set did not differ across answer levels (Welch F 0.90, p 0.444, n = 150 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 assigned answer.

Table 13. Association with intent to leave by answer levelTable

| Answer level | Engagements | Mean of the measure | SD |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| CXM | 42 | 6.5 | 2.5 |
| ITO | 40 | 7.1 | 2.2 |
| BPO | 37 | 6.7 | 2.6 |
| KPO | 31 | 6.8 | 2.4 |

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

Table 14. 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 | 150 | 0.47 | 3, 78.9 | 0.703 | 1.000 | −0.011 | 0.000 to 0.029 |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | |
| CXM | Identity, the segment is this indicator |
| ITO | Identity, the segment is this indicator |
| BPO | Identity, the segment is this indicator |
| KPO | Identity, the segment is this indicator |
| 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 | 47 | 0.05 | 2, 26.9 | 0.953 | 1.000 | −0.042 | 0.000 to 0.000 |
| Technology engineering and operations | Fewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements |
| Client servicing and communications | Fewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | Fewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements |
| Payments, cards and disputes | Fewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | 9 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | 9 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | 7 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Class of work | | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | 76 | 3.23 | 3, 39.3 | 0.033 | 0.163 | 0.055 | 0.000 to 0.181 |
| Corporate Functional | 74 | 0.29 | 3, 31.6 | 0.835 | 1.000 | −0.029 | 0.000 to 0.040 |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | Fewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 35 | 3.85 | 2, 19.5 | 0.039 | 0.163 | 0.113 | 0.000 to 0.324 |
| Active, Production | Fewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements |
| Canceled | 56 | 3.68 | 3, 28.4 | 0.023 | 0.141 | 0.085 | 0.000 to 0.246 |

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

The measure in the study set did not differ across answer levels (Welch F 0.47, p 0.703, n = 150 engagements).

## Comparison of Associations Across the Four Measures

Table 15. 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 | 150 | −0.020 | 0.994 | Yes | 4 |
| Customer satisfaction | Omega squared | 94 | −0.004 | 0.510 | Yes | 2 |
| Engagement indicator mean | Omega squared | 150 | −0.003 | 0.444 | Yes | 1 |
| Intent to leave | Omega squared | 150 | −0.011 | 0.703 | Yes | 3 |

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

Table 16. Clustering and effective sample sizeTable

| Statistic | Value | Reading |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Clusters (engagements) | 150 | Engagements with at least one answer. |
| Mean respondents per engagement | 5.7 | Answers per engagement with at least one answer. |
| ICC(1) | 1.00 | Share of variance between engagements. |
| Design effect | 5.66 | 1 plus (mean cluster size minus 1) times ICC. |
| Nominal respondent n | 849 | Every answer, with I do not know and I prefer to not answer counted as levels, as the plurality rule counts them. |
| Effective n | 150 | 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 849 respondent answers to about 150 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 17. 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 | 150 | −0.020 | Omega squared < 0.090 | < 0.001 | Yes | 0.91 | 0.069 |
| Customer satisfaction | 94 | −0.004 | Omega squared < 0.090 | 0.029 | Yes | 0.71 | 0.108 |
| Engagement indicator mean | 150 | −0.003 | Omega squared < 0.090 | 0.004 | Yes | 0.91 | 0.069 |
| Intent to leave | 150 | −0.011 | Omega squared < 0.090 | < 0.001 | Yes | 0.91 | 0.069 |

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

## Robustness Checks

Table 18. Robustness checksTable

| Check | Measure | Primary p | Check p | Check statistic | Conclusion holds |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Kruskal-Wallis in place of Welch F | Customer satisfaction | 0.510 | 0.527 | 2.22 | Yes |
| Kruskal-Wallis in place of Welch F | Engagement indicator mean | 0.444 | 0.502 | 2.36 | Yes |
| Kruskal-Wallis in place of Welch F | Intent to leave | 0.703 | 0.897 | 0.60 | Yes |
| Active engagements only | Engagement indicator mean | 0.444 | 0.374 | 1.06 | Yes |
| Active engagements only | Intent to leave | 0.703 | 0.170 | 1.75 | Yes |
| Respondent level, cluster-robust Wald F by engagement | Cancellation rate | 0.994 | 0.951 | 0.11 | Yes |
| Respondent level, cluster-robust Wald F by engagement | Customer satisfaction | 0.510 | 0.822 | 0.30 | Yes |
| Respondent level, cluster-robust Wald F by engagement | Engagement indicator mean | 0.444 | 0.402 | 0.98 | Yes |
| Respondent level, cluster-robust Wald F by engagement | Intent to leave | 0.703 | 0.707 | 0.46 | 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 item has no signed correlation, so it has no profile. Its per-level means carry the comparison.

## Co-Occurring Indicators and Themes

Figure 3. Other indicators and themes coded in the same written responses (n = 1 response)ExhibitNote: Gray bars are other indicators coded in the same responses. Amber bars are themes of the coding rulebook, which carry no score. Labels give counts. Every co-coded indicator and every theme at or above the fifth-highest count of its kind is shown, ties included. ENG:Outsourcing Type, the twin of the indicator under rule 6.6 of the coding rulebook, records the same fact and is not shown (coded in the single response). C122: “Rate your employer's current supply of qualified agentic AI talent against what its engagements need.” C125: “Rate how well your employer's training programs build financial industry knowledge.” C131: “Rate the depth of your employer's knowledge of agentic AI.”

The indicator's twin, ENG:Outsourcing Type, records the same fact under the coding rulebook's twin rule. The twin was coded in the single response coded to the indicator. The twin is left out of the counts that follow. The response coded to the indicator was also coded to “Rate your employer's current supply of qualified agentic AI talent against what its engagements need” (C122, 1 response), “Rate how well your employer's training programs build financial industry knowledge” (C125, 1 response) and “Rate the depth of your employer's knowledge of agentic AI” (C131, 1 response). The theme “Human presented as agentic” of the coding rulebook was the only theme in the same response.

## Interpretation of the Data

Every robustness check run on this item held (9 of 9 checks). Outsourcing type sorted engagements by process family and vendor type, and it showed no association with the four study measures.

The indicator is a survey question that is not a rating, 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 answers. The analysis of the written responses rested on 1 response, a base of anecdote strength.

## 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.

Each engagement took its respondents' plurality answer for the measure comparisons (150 of 150 engagements).

Fewer than 10 responses carried a score, so written sentiment was reported as counts, with no statistic. Coding was performed by AI coders under a fixed rulebook. No response coded to the indicator fell in the sample second-coded under rulebook 0.5, so agreement on whether a response was coded to the indicator could not be assessed. No response coded to the indicator was second-scored under rulebook 0.6, so agreement on the score could not be assessed.

## Definitions

Table 19. 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 | Respondents who gave one of the listed answers. |
| Non-answers | “I do not know” and “I prefer to not answer” are counted separately and are excluded from the answering base and the shares. |
| 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 | 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 20. Sources and provenanceTable

| Item | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Study data | Study Data.xlsx, Data sheet, column C032, sha256 219eba0457274d04 |
| Statistics engine | compute_statistics.py, sha256 738319eef764602b |
| Statistics record | Computed Statistics.json, record C032, 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 | 711 of 711 |
| 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 | C032.qa.json, sha256 d1499e19c51e8148. C032.wfacts.json, sha256 8b95731c292eb92f. Prose C032.json, sha256 1a4a49732bc4207f |


## 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/)
- [C019](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-4-c019/)
- [C122](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-2-c122/)
- [C125](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-2-c125/)
- [C131](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-2-c131/)