Source: https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-1-c037/
Author: Phil Hatch
Publisher: Akholi

How many months has the engagement been in its current stage?

Study Data · Part 1 · Indicator Deep-Dive Analysis

# How many months has the engagement been in its current stage?

Indicator C037 · 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 | C037 |
| Question as asked | How many months has the engagement been in its current stage? |
| Failure category | Not one of the 100 rated indicators |
| Place in the survey | Engagement Details > 2.2 Timeline and Status > Timeline |
| Indicator class | Engagement attribute |
| Indicator type | Typed number |
| Response scale | A number, as typed or recorded |
| Answering base | 794 of 850 respondents, across 150 of 150 engagements |
| Non-answers | I do not know 0, I prefer to not answer 0, blank 56 |
| Written responses coded to the indicator | 3 responses from 3 respondents on 3 engagements (0 primary, 3 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 | −0.10 | −0.25 to 0.06 | 0.233 |
| Customer satisfaction | Clean estimate | 94 engagements | 0.07 | −0.13 to 0.27 | 0.488 |
| Engagement indicator mean | Full | 150 engagements | 0.15 | −0.01 to 0.30 | 0.069 |
| Intent to leave | Respondent level, clustered | 745 respondents | −0.11 | −0.26 to 0.06 | 0.166 |

Respondents reported a mean time in the current stage in months (mean 3.1, median 2.0, n = 794 respondents). The association with cancellation was equivalent to zero (TOST p 0.005). The associations with customer satisfaction on active engagements (TOST p 0.012) and with the engagement indicator mean (TOST p 0.027) were also equivalent to zero. The association with intent to leave was equivalent to zero as well (TOST p 0.009). Time in stage differed after Holm control by class of work (Welch F 7.01, Holm p 0.046, omega squared 0.038), by engagement status and lifecycle stage (Welch F 22.61, Holm p < 0.001, omega squared 0.293), and by vendor type (Welch F 4.38, Holm p 0.005, omega squared 0.018).

The indicator had 3 written responses coded to it, from 3 of 850 respondents on 3 of 150 engagements. All 3 scored responses were negative. No response carried the strongest negative score, −10. Every response 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 794) | Cumulative share | Engagements with at least one | Share of 150 engagements | Distressed |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1.0 to 2.8 | 407 | 51.26% | 51.26% | 75 | 50.00% | Not applicable |
| 2.8 to 4.6 | 243 | 30.60% | 81.86% | 47 | 31.33% | Not applicable |
| 4.6 to 6.4 | 77 | 9.70% | 91.56% | 15 | 10.00% | Not applicable |
| 6.4 to 8.2 | 40 | 5.04% | 96.60% | 7 | 4.67% | Not applicable |
| 8.2 to 10.0 | 4 | 0.50% | 97.10% | 1 | 0.67% | Not applicable |
| 10.0 to 11.8 | 15 | 1.89% | 98.99% | 3 | 2.00% | Not applicable |
| 11.8 to 13.6 | 3 | 0.38% | 99.37% | 1 | 0.67% | Not applicable |
| 13.6 to 15.4 | 0 | 0.00% | 99.37% | 0 | 0.00% | Not applicable |
| 15.4 to 17.2 | 0 | 0.00% | 99.37% | 0 | 0.00% | Not applicable |
| 17.2 to 19.0 | 5 | 0.63% | 100.00% | 1 | 0.67% | Not applicable |
| 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 | 794 | 100.00% | | 150 | 100.00% | |

Table 4. Distribution of responses, 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, as recorded | 150 | 3.2 | 2.6 | 1.0 | 2.5 | 19.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |

The study set mean was 3.1 on 794 answering respondents, with a median of 2.0.

## Coverage and Origin of Written Responses

Figure 1. Written responses coded to the indicator, by the question answered and by written score (n = 3 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. C030 asked: “What are the top 3 things that you love most about your job?” C055 asked: “How does the vendor manipulate performance reports and dashboards?” C114 asked: “Add any comments on the customer organization 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 | 0 | 0 | 0 | a | | | |
| Secondary | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 of 3 | 0 of 3 | 0 of 3 | ‡ |
| All responses | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 of 3 | 0 of 3 | 0 of 3 | ‡ |

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

All 3 responses were secondary responses. The secondary responses came from 3 respondents on 3 engagements, in answer to 3 questions outside the indicator's own survey section (C030 with 1 response, C055 with 1 response and C114 with 1 response).

## Distribution of Written Sentiment

Figure 2. Distribution of written sentiment (n = 3 scored responses)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 “How many months has the engagement been in its current stage?” 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. Of the 3 scored responses, all were negative and none carried the strongest negative score.

## Descriptive Statistics by Segment

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

| Segment | Base | Answered | Answer rate | Engagements | Mean | 95% CI | SD |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Study set | 850 | 794 | 93.41% of 850 | 150 | 3.1 | 2.9 to 3.3 | 2.5 |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | |
| CXM | 232 | 219 | 94.40% of 232 | 42 | 2.9 | 2.6 to 3.3 | 2.6 |
| ITO | 244 | 227 | 93.03% of 244 | 40 | 3.1 | 2.8 to 3.4 | 2.2 |
| BPO | 209 | 193 | 92.34% of 209 | 37 | 3.0 | 2.8 to 3.2 | 1.6 |
| KPO | 165 | 155 | 93.94% of 165 | 31 | 3.6 | 3.1 to 4.1 | 3.4 |
| Institution type | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | 132 | 124 | 93.94% of 132 | 24 | 3.7 | 3.2 to 4.2 | 2.9 |
| Wealth management and private banking | 140 | 130 | 92.86% of 140 | 23 | 2.5 | 2.3 to 2.8 | 1.4 |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | 105 | 102 | 97.14% of 105 | 19 | 3.9 | 3.0 to 4.7 | 4.2 |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | 78 | 72 | 92.31% of 78 | 14 | 2.8 | 2.4 to 3.1 | 1.6 |
| Commercial and business banking | 82 | 77 | 93.90% of 82 | 13 | 3.1 | 2.7 to 3.5 | 1.8 |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | 71 | 61 | 85.92% of 71 | 13 | 3.5 | 2.8 to 4.1 | 2.5 |
| Credit card and payments issuing | 73 | 67 | 91.78% of 73 | 12 | 2.8 | 2.3 to 3.4 | 2.3 |
| Retail and consumer banking | 73 | 70 | 95.89% of 73 | 12 | 2.6 | 2.3 to 2.9 | 1.4 |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | 57 | 53 | 92.98% of 57 | 11 | 2.8 | 2.4 to 3.3 | 1.6 |
| Private equity and private capital | 39 | 38 | 97.44% of 39 | 9 | 3.1 | 2.3 to 3.9 | 2.3 |
| Process family | | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | 248 | 238 | 95.97% of 248 | 47 | 2.8 | 2.5 to 3.0 | 1.6 |
| Technology engineering and operations | 204 | 191 | 93.63% of 204 | 35 | 2.6 | 2.4 to 2.9 | 1.8 |
| Client servicing and communications | 94 | 85 | 90.43% of 94 | 16 | 3.9 | 3.3 to 4.6 | 3.0 |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | 80 | 73 | 91.25% of 80 | 15 | 4.8 | 3.6 to 5.9 | 4.7 |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 73 | 70 | 95.89% of 73 | 12 | 3.4 | 2.8 to 4.0 | 2.7 |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | 57 | 53 | 92.98% of 57 | 9 | 2.6 | 2.1 to 3.2 | 2.1 |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | 51 | 46 | 90.20% of 51 | 9 | 2.4 | 2.0 to 2.9 | 1.5 |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | 43 | 38 | 88.37% of 43 | 7 | 3.7 | 3.2 to 4.2 | 1.5 |
| Class of work | | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | 451 | 414 | 91.80% of 451 | 76 | 3.7 | 3.4 to 3.9 | 3.0 |
| Corporate Functional | 399 | 380 | 95.24% of 399 | 74 | 2.5 | 2.4 to 2.7 | 1.6 |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | 175 | 167 | 95.43% of 175 | 31 | 1.7 | 1.6 to 1.8 | 0.6 |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 250 | 228 | 91.20% of 250 | 43 | 3.1 | 3.0 to 3.3 | 1.3 |
| Active, Production | 103 | 98 | 95.15% of 103 | 20 | 6.5 | 5.7 to 7.2 | 3.8 |
| Canceled | 322 | 301 | 93.48% of 322 | 56 | 2.8 | 2.5 to 3.1 | 2.3 |
| Respondent role | | | | | | | |
| Individual Contributor | 667 | 614 | 92.05% of 667 | 150 | 3.1 | 2.9 to 3.3 | 2.5 |
| Engagement Manager | 150 | 150 | 100.00% of 150 | 150 | 3.2 | 2.8 to 3.6 | 2.6 |
| Portfolio Director | 31 | 28 | 90.32% of 31 | 28 | 3.0 | † | 2.1 |
| Customer Management Executive | 2 | 2 | 2 of 2 | 2 | ‡ | | |
| Vendor type | | | | | | | |
| IT services major | 316 | 293 | 92.72% of 316 | 59 | 3.2 | 3.0 to 3.5 | 2.0 |
| BPO specialist | 198 | 185 | 93.43% of 198 | 37 | 2.6 | 2.3 to 2.9 | 2.1 |
| Consulting firm | 117 | 109 | 93.16% of 117 | 23 | 3.7 | 2.9 to 4.5 | 4.1 |
| Boutique or specialist provider | 87 | 84 | 96.55% of 87 | 17 | 3.5 | 2.8 to 4.1 | 3.0 |
| Pure-play agentic AI firm | 75 | 70 | 93.33% of 75 | 14 | 2.6 | 2.3 to 2.9 | 1.3 |
| Not reported, recovered by engagement | 57 | 53 | 92.98% of 57 | 43 | 2.9 | 2.4 to 3.5 | 1.9 |

Note: † Base under 30. No interval is reported. ‡ Base under 10. No statistic is reported.
Table 6b. Descriptive statistics by segment, part 2 of 2Table

| Segment | Min | Q1 | Median | Q3 | Max | Distressed n | Distressed % |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Study set | 1.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 4.0 | 19.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | |
| CXM | 1.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 12.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| ITO | 1.0 | 1.0 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 11.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| BPO | 1.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 7.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| KPO | 1.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 19.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Institution type | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | 1.0 | 1.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 11.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Wealth management and private banking | 1.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 7.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | 1.0 | 1.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 19.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | 1.0 | 1.8 | 2.0 | 4.0 | 6.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Commercial and business banking | 1.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | 1.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 12.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Credit card and payments issuing | 1.0 | 1.5 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 8.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Retail and consumer banking | 1.0 | 1.3 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 6.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | 1.0 | 1.0 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 6.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Private equity and private capital | 1.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 4.0 | 9.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Process family | | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | 1.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 4.0 | 7.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Technology engineering and operations | 1.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 9.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Client servicing and communications | 1.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 6.0 | 11.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | 1.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 19.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 1.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 4.0 | 12.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | 1.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 8.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | 1.0 | 1.0 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 6.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | 1.0 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 6.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Class of work | | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | 1.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 19.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Corporate Functional | 1.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 9.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | 1.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 1.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 6.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Active, Production | 2.0 | 4.0 | 6.0 | 7.0 | 19.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Canceled | 1.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 11.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Respondent role | | | | | | | |
| Individual Contributor | 1.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 4.0 | 19.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Engagement Manager | 1.0 | 2.0 | 2.5 | 4.0 | 19.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Portfolio Director | 1.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 4.0 | 9.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Customer Management Executive | ‡ n = 2 | | | | | | |
| Vendor type | | | | | | | |
| IT services major | 1.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 9.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| BPO specialist | 1.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 12.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Consulting firm | 1.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 19.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Boutique or specialist provider | 1.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 4.0 | 11.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Pure-play agentic AI firm | 1.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Not reported, recovered by engagement | 1.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 11.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |

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

Figures are respondent level. Means are on the scale as recorded. A level under 30 prints no interval and a level under 10 prints counts only.

## Tests of Difference Between Segments

Table 7a. Tests of difference between segments, part 1 of 2Table

| Segment family | Welch F | df | p | Holm p | Omega squared | 90% CI |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Outsourcing model | 0.20 | 3, 76.0 | 0.893 | 1.000 | −0.014 | 0.000 to 0.021 |
| Institution type | 0.62 | 8, 49.8 | 0.760 | 1.000 | −0.014 | 0.000 to 0.051 |
| Process family | 1.28 | 4, 34.8 | 0.298 | 1.000 | 0.042 | 0.000 to 0.131 |
| Class of work | 7.01 | 1, 116.8 | 0.009 | 0.046 | 0.038 | 0.006 to 0.109 |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | 22.61 | 3, 59.5 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.293 | 0.199 to 0.389 |
| Respondent role | 0.10 | 2, 70.0 | 0.905 | 1.000 | −0.002 | 0.000 to 0.002 |
| Vendor type | 4.38 | 5, 238.1 | < 0.001 | 0.005 | 0.018 | 0.006 to 0.040 |

Table 7b. 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 | 2.86 | 0.414 | Not applicable | | Not applicable | | None |
| Institution type | 3.59 | 0.892 | Not applicable | | Not applicable | | a |
| Process family | 4.54 | 0.337 | Not applicable | | Not applicable | | b |
| Class of work | 5.01 | 0.025 | Not applicable | | Not applicable | | None |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | 49.03 | < 0.001 | Not applicable | | Not applicable | | None |
| Respondent role | 0.25 | 0.881 | Not applicable | | Not applicable | | c |
| Vendor type | 19.50 | 0.002 | Not applicable | | Not applicable | | 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 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. Class of work differed after Holm control (Welch F 7.01, Holm p 0.046, tested on engagement means). In Descriptive Statistics by Segment, LOB Operational had the highest mean, 3.7 (n = 414 respondents), and Corporate Functional the lowest, 2.5 (n = 380 respondents). Engagement status and lifecycle stage differed after Holm control (Welch F 22.61, Holm p < 0.001, tested on engagement means). In Descriptive Statistics by Segment, Active, Production had the highest mean, 6.5 (n = 98 respondents), and Active, Build-Out the lowest, 1.7 (n = 167 respondents). Vendor type differed after Holm control (Welch F 4.38, Holm p 0.005, tested on respondents). In Descriptive Statistics by Segment, Consulting firm had the highest mean, 3.7 (n = 109 respondents), and BPO specialist the lowest, 2.6 (n = 185 respondents). No difference held after Holm control for outsourcing model, institution type, process family 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.

Table 8a. 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 | −0.10 | −0.25 to 0.06 | 0.233 | 1.000 |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | |
| CXM | 42 | 15 | 35.71% of 42 | −0.09 | −0.38 to 0.22 | 0.592 | 1.000 |
| ITO | 40 | 15 | 37.50% of 40 | −0.06 | −0.36 to 0.26 | 0.728 | 1.000 |
| BPO | 37 | 14 | 37.84% of 37 | −0.21 | −0.50 to 0.12 | 0.209 | 1.000 |
| KPO | 31 | 12 | 38.71% of 31 | −0.10 | −0.44 to 0.26 | 0.597 | 1.000 |
| Institution type | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | 24 | 13 | 54.17% of 24 | −0.15 | † | 0.483 | 1.000 |
| Wealth management and private banking | 23 | 8 | 34.78% of 23 | −0.29 | † | 0.185 | 1.000 |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | 19 | 9 | 47.37% of 19 | −0.10 | † | 0.689 | 1.000 |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | 14 | 5 | 35.71% of 14 | 0.01 | † | 0.980 | 1.000 |
| Commercial and business banking | 13 | 4 | 30.77% of 13 | 0.30 | † | 0.319 | 1.000 |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | 13 | 3 | 23.08% of 13 | −0.09 | † | 0.780 | 1.000 |
| Credit card and payments issuing | 12 | 5 | 41.67% of 12 | −0.44 | † | 0.151 | 1.000 |
| Retail and consumer banking | 12 | 4 | 33.33% of 12 | 0.16 | † | 0.610 | 1.000 |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | 11 | 3 | 27.27% of 11 | −0.09 | † | 0.781 | 1.000 |
| Private equity and private capital | 9 | 2 | 2 of 9 | ‡ | | | |
| Process family | | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | 47 | 19 | 40.43% of 47 | −0.19 | −0.45 to 0.10 | 0.201 | 1.000 |
| Technology engineering and operations | 35 | 10 | 28.57% of 35 | −0.19 | −0.49 to 0.15 | 0.265 | 1.000 |
| Client servicing and communications | 16 | 9 | 56.25% of 16 | −0.06 | † | 0.828 | 1.000 |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | 15 | 8 | 53.33% of 15 | −0.10 | † | 0.726 | 1.000 |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 12 | 2 | 16.67% of 12 | −0.38 | † | 0.224 | 1.000 |
| 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 | −0.06 | −0.28 to 0.17 | 0.635 | 1.000 |
| Corporate Functional | 74 | 26 | 35.14% of 74 | −0.23 | −0.43 to 0.00 | 0.051 | 1.000 |
| 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 8b. 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 | 0.91 | 0.79 to 1.06 | 0.59 | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | 0.005 |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | |
| CXM | 0.93 | 0.73 to 1.20 | 0.63 | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | 0.081 |
| ITO | 0.95 | 0.71 to 1.27 | 0.61 | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | 0.062 |
| BPO | 0.75 | 0.48 to 1.17 | 0.63 | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | 0.290 |
| KPO | 0.93 | 0.72 to 1.20 | 0.50 | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | 0.133 |
| Institution type | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | 0.90 | † n = 24 | 0.63 | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | 0.235 |
| Wealth management and private banking | 0.60 | † n = 23 | 0.64 | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | 0.473 |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | 0.95 | † n = 19 | 0.56 | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | 0.199 |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | 1.01 | † n = 14 | 0.54 | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | 0.158 |
| Commercial and business banking | 1.47 | † n = 13 | 0.65 | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | 0.501 |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | 0.92 | † n = 13 | 0.52 | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | 0.240 |
| Credit card and payments issuing | 0.29 | † n = 12 | 0.79 | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | 0.689 |
| Retail and consumer banking | 1.27 | † n = 12 | 0.53 | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | 0.333 |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | 0.87 | † n = 11 | 0.63 | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | 0.272 |
| Private equity and private capital | ‡ n = 9 | | | | | | |
| Process family | | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | 0.78 | 0.53 to 1.14 | 0.63 | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | 0.218 |
| Technology engineering and operations | 0.73 | 0.42 to 1.27 | 0.65 | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | 0.261 |
| Client servicing and communications | 0.96 | † n = 16 | 0.56 | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | 0.183 |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | 0.96 | † n = 15 | 0.52 | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | 0.233 |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 0.47 | † n = 12 | 0.95 | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | 0.606 |
| 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 | 0.96 | 0.82 to 1.13 | 0.55 | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | 0.015 |
| Corporate Functional | 0.71 | 0.49 to 1.01 | 0.65 | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | 0.256 |
| 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 −0.10 (95% CI −0.25 to 0.06, Holm p 1.000, n = 150 engagements). The association did not hold after Holm control. Equivalence Tests of Null Results found it equivalent to zero inside the bound. Of the 20 tested segment levels, 0 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 9a. 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 | 0.07 | −0.13 to 0.27 | 0.488 | 1.000 | 0.03 | 0.761 |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | |
| CXM | 27 | 0.52 | † | 0.006 | 0.094 | 0.33 | 0.096 |
| ITO | 25 | 0.05 | † | 0.826 | 1.000 | 0.02 | 0.942 |
| BPO | 23 | −0.18 | † | 0.420 | 1.000 | −0.15 | 0.487 |
| KPO | 19 | −0.21 | † | 0.389 | 1.000 | −0.27 | 0.262 |
| Institution type | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | 11 | 0.49 | † | 0.129 | 1.000 | 0.47 | 0.142 |
| Wealth management and private banking | 15 | −0.01 | † | 0.977 | 1.000 | −0.03 | 0.918 |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | 10 | −0.28 | † | 0.435 | 1.000 | −0.14 | 0.707 |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | 9 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Commercial and business banking | 9 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | 10 | 0.37 | † | 0.289 | 1.000 | −0.08 | 0.830 |
| 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 | −0.15 | † | 0.452 | 1.000 | −0.21 | 0.290 |
| Technology engineering and operations | 25 | 0.18 | † | 0.379 | 1.000 | 0.13 | 0.523 |
| Client servicing and communications | 7 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | 7 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 10 | 0.44 | † | 0.203 | 1.000 | 0.05 | 0.890 |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | 8 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | 5 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | 4 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Class of work | | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | 46 | 0.07 | −0.22 to 0.36 | 0.631 | 1.000 | 0.02 | 0.893 |
| Corporate Functional | 48 | 0.09 | −0.20 to 0.37 | 0.531 | 1.000 | 0.06 | 0.699 |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | 31 | −0.29 | −0.59 to 0.07 | 0.108 | 1.000 | −0.29 | 0.120 |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 43 | 0.06 | −0.24 to 0.35 | 0.700 | 1.000 | 0.00 | 0.999 |
| Active, Production | 20 | 0.00 | † | 0.997 | 1.000 | 0.08 | 0.727 |
| 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 9b. 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 | 0.32 | −0.58 to 1.22 | 0.01 | 0.012 | 150 | 0.11 | 0.193 |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | |
| CXM | 2.39 | † n = 27 | 0.27 | 0.903 | 42 | 0.22 | 0.152 |
| ITO | 0.23 | † n = 25 | 0.00 | 0.109 | 40 | 0.05 | 0.742 |
| BPO | −1.19 | † n = 23 | 0.03 | 0.279 | 37 | 0.16 | 0.341 |
| KPO | −0.66 | † n = 19 | 0.04 | 0.350 | 31 | 0.01 | 0.941 |
| Institution type | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | 1.64 | † n = 11 | 0.24 | 0.736 | 24 | 0.18 | 0.404 |
| Wealth management and private banking | −0.04 | † n = 15 | 0.00 | 0.148 | 23 | 0.27 | 0.219 |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | −0.62 | † n = 10 | 0.08 | 0.476 | 19 | 0.00 | 0.987 |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | ‡ n = 9 | | | | | | |
| Commercial and business banking | ‡ n = 9 | | | | | | |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | 1.70 | † n = 10 | 0.14 | 0.586 | 13 | 0.23 | 0.446 |
| 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 | −1.12 | † n = 28 | 0.02 | 0.211 | 47 | 0.15 | 0.321 |
| Technology engineering and operations | 1.04 | † n = 25 | 0.03 | 0.281 | 35 | 0.25 | 0.155 |
| Client servicing and communications | ‡ n = 7 | | | | | | |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | ‡ n = 7 | | | | | | |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 1.50 | † n = 10 | 0.19 | 0.667 | 12 | 0.52 | 0.086 |
| 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 | 0.29 | −0.91 to 1.48 | 0.01 | 0.060 | 76 | 0.07 | 0.564 |
| Corporate Functional | 0.53 | −1.16 to 2.22 | 0.01 | 0.073 | 74 | 0.24 | 0.044 |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | −4.46 | −9.96 to 1.04 | 0.09 | 0.487 | 31 | −0.29 | 0.108 |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 0.63 | −2.64 to 3.90 | 0.00 | 0.058 | 43 | 0.06 | 0.700 |
| Active, Production | 0.00 | † | 0.00 | 0.102 | 20 | 0.00 | 0.997 |
| 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 0.07 (95% CI −0.13 to 0.27, Holm p 1.000, n = 94 engagements). The association did not hold after Holm control. Equivalence Tests of Null Results found it equivalent to zero inside the bound. Of the 16 tested segment levels, 0 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 10a. 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 | 0.15 | −0.01 to 0.30 | 0.069 | 1.000 | 0.10 | 0.207 |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | |
| CXM | 42 | 0.28 | −0.03 to 0.54 | 0.076 | 1.000 | 0.27 | 0.085 |
| ITO | 40 | 0.16 | −0.16 to 0.45 | 0.330 | 1.000 | 0.23 | 0.162 |
| BPO | 37 | 0.06 | −0.27 to 0.38 | 0.724 | 1.000 | 0.05 | 0.779 |
| KPO | 31 | 0.06 | −0.30 to 0.40 | 0.766 | 1.000 | −0.08 | 0.683 |
| Institution type | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | 24 | 0.39 | † | 0.061 | 1.000 | 0.40 | 0.055 |
| Wealth management and private banking | 23 | 0.22 | † | 0.312 | 1.000 | 0.10 | 0.666 |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | 19 | 0.35 | † | 0.145 | 1.000 | 0.31 | 0.201 |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | 14 | 0.15 | † | 0.608 | 1.000 | 0.02 | 0.957 |
| Commercial and business banking | 13 | −0.31 | † | 0.307 | 1.000 | −0.27 | 0.368 |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | 13 | 0.24 | † | 0.439 | 1.000 | −0.23 | 0.450 |
| Credit card and payments issuing | 12 | 0.13 | † | 0.690 | 1.000 | 0.33 | 0.293 |
| Retail and consumer banking | 12 | −0.40 | † | 0.199 | 1.000 | −0.38 | 0.219 |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | 11 | 0.10 | † | 0.759 | 1.000 | 0.15 | 0.669 |
| Private equity and private capital | 9 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Process family | | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | 47 | −0.02 | −0.31 to 0.27 | 0.885 | 1.000 | 0.06 | 0.703 |
| Technology engineering and operations | 35 | 0.23 | −0.11 to 0.52 | 0.189 | 1.000 | 0.26 | 0.129 |
| Client servicing and communications | 16 | 0.45 | † | 0.083 | 1.000 | 0.53 | 0.034 |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | 15 | 0.26 | † | 0.347 | 1.000 | 0.19 | 0.489 |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 12 | 0.54 | † | 0.071 | 1.000 | 0.34 | 0.272 |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | 9 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | 9 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | 7 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Class of work | | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | 76 | 0.17 | −0.05 to 0.38 | 0.135 | 1.000 | 0.10 | 0.410 |
| Corporate Functional | 74 | 0.14 | −0.09 to 0.36 | 0.221 | 1.000 | 0.15 | 0.210 |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | 31 | −0.17 | −0.50 to 0.19 | 0.355 | 1.000 | −0.19 | 0.300 |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 43 | −0.09 | −0.38 to 0.22 | 0.570 | 1.000 | −0.14 | 0.386 |
| Active, Production | 20 | 0.33 | † | 0.161 | 1.000 | 0.25 | 0.282 |
| Canceled | 56 | 0.21 | −0.06 to 0.45 | 0.120 | 1.000 | 0.01 | 0.962 |

Note: † Base under 30. No interval is reported. ‡ Base under 10. No statistic is reported.
Table 10b. 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 | | 0.09 | −0.01 to 0.18 | 0.02 | 0.027 | Yes |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | |
| CXM | Not a component | | 0.16 | −0.02 to 0.34 | 0.08 | 0.438 | No |
| ITO | Not a component | | 0.09 | −0.09 to 0.27 | 0.03 | 0.181 | No |
| BPO | Not a component | | 0.05 | −0.23 to 0.33 | 0.00 | 0.073 | No |
| KPO | Not a component | | 0.03 | −0.16 to 0.21 | 0.00 | 0.090 | No |
| Institution type | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | Not a component | | 0.21 | † n = 24 | 0.15 | 0.677 | No |
| Wealth management and private banking | Not a component | | 0.21 | † n = 23 | 0.05 | 0.352 | No |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | Not a component | | 0.09 | † n = 19 | 0.12 | 0.585 | No |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | Not a component | | 0.15 | † n = 14 | 0.02 | 0.300 | No |
| Commercial and business banking | Not a component | | −0.26 | † n = 13 | 0.09 | 0.511 | No |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | Not a component | | 0.13 | † n = 13 | 0.06 | 0.413 | No |
| Credit card and payments issuing | Not a component | | 0.07 | † n = 12 | 0.02 | 0.294 | No |
| Retail and consumer banking | Not a component | | −0.44 | † n = 12 | 0.16 | 0.632 | No |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | Not a component | | 0.10 | † n = 11 | 0.01 | 0.282 | No |
| Private equity and private capital | ‡ n = 9 | | | | | | |
| Process family | | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | Not a component | | −0.02 | −0.31 to 0.27 | 0.00 | 0.028 | Yes |
| Technology engineering and operations | Not a component | | 0.16 | −0.09 to 0.41 | 0.05 | 0.329 | No |
| Client servicing and communications | Not a component | | 0.23 | † n = 16 | 0.20 | 0.732 | No |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | Not a component | | 0.07 | † n = 15 | 0.07 | 0.442 | No |
| Payments, cards and disputes | Not a component | | 0.22 | † n = 12 | 0.29 | 0.809 | 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 | | 0.08 | −0.03 to 0.19 | 0.03 | 0.125 | No |
| Corporate Functional | Not a component | | 0.12 | −0.08 to 0.32 | 0.02 | 0.083 | No |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | Not a component | | −0.29 | −0.91 to 0.34 | 0.03 | 0.236 | No |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | Not a component | | −0.09 | −0.40 to 0.22 | 0.01 | 0.082 | No |
| Active, Production | Not a component | | 0.12 | † n = 20 | 0.11 | 0.547 | No |
| Canceled | Not a component | | 0.06 | −0.02 to 0.13 | 0.04 | 0.241 | No |

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

The study set r was 0.15 (95% CI −0.01 to 0.30, Holm p 1.000, n = 150 engagements). The association did not hold after Holm control. Equivalence Tests of Null Results found it equivalent to zero inside the bound. Of the 24 tested segment levels, 0 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 11a. 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 | 745 | −0.11 | −0.18 to −0.04 | −0.26 to 0.07 | 0.003 | 0.114 |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | |
| CXM | 204 | −0.23 | −0.36 to −0.10 | −0.54 to 0.15 | < 0.001 | 0.031 |
| ITO | 216 | 0.14 | 0.01 to 0.27 | −0.18 to 0.39 | 0.040 | 0.919 |
| BPO | 180 | −0.15 | −0.29 to −0.01 | −0.44 to 0.14 | 0.039 | 0.919 |
| KPO | 145 | −0.20 | −0.35 to −0.03 | −0.44 to 0.22 | 0.018 | 0.496 |
| Institution type | | | | | | |
| Asset management | 114 | −0.28 | −0.44 to −0.10 | −0.67 to 0.17 | 0.003 | 0.110 |
| Wealth management and private banking | 122 | −0.25 | −0.41 to −0.08 | −0.56 to 0.08 | 0.005 | 0.159 |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | 95 | −0.21 | −0.40 to −0.01 | −0.58 to 0.42 | 0.038 | 0.919 |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | 65 | −0.22 | −0.44 to 0.02 | −0.67 to 0.57 | 0.072 | 1.000 |
| Commercial and business banking | 72 | 0.30 | 0.07 to 0.49 | −0.26 to 0.72 | 0.011 | 0.353 |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | 59 | −0.05 | −0.30 to 0.21 | −0.60 to 0.72 | 0.734 | 1.000 |
| Credit card and payments issuing | 65 | −0.25 | −0.47 to −0.01 | −0.68 to 0.12 | 0.041 | 0.919 |
| Retail and consumer banking | 65 | 0.23 | −0.02 to 0.45 | −0.48 to 0.71 | 0.070 | 1.000 |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | 51 | 0.06 | −0.22 to 0.33 | −0.71 to 0.69 | 0.656 | 1.000 |
| Private equity and private capital | 37 | −0.46 | −0.68 to −0.16 | § n = 9 | 0.004 | 0.150 |
| Process family | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | 218 | −0.11 | −0.24 to 0.02 | −0.36 to 0.13 | 0.096 | 1.000 |
| Technology engineering and operations | 181 | 0.00 | −0.14 to 0.15 | −0.25 to 0.26 | 0.960 | 1.000 |
| Client servicing and communications | 81 | −0.32 | −0.50 to −0.10 | −0.77 to 0.35 | 0.004 | 0.142 |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | 68 | −0.19 | −0.41 to 0.05 | −0.70 to 0.55 | 0.128 | 1.000 |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 67 | −0.15 | −0.38 to 0.10 | −0.65 to 0.52 | 0.230 | 1.000 |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | 49 | −0.28 | −0.52 to 0.00 | § n = 9 | 0.052 | 0.994 |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | 44 | −0.31 | −0.56 to −0.01 | § n = 9 | 0.040 | 0.919 |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | 37 | −0.01 | −0.33 to 0.32 | § n = 7 | 0.955 | 1.000 |
| Class of work | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | 388 | −0.12 | −0.21 to −0.02 | −0.32 to 0.14 | 0.023 | 0.610 |
| Corporate Functional | 357 | −0.13 | −0.23 to −0.03 | −0.33 to 0.06 | 0.013 | 0.389 |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | 158 | 0.20 | 0.04 to 0.34 | −0.12 to 0.46 | 0.014 | 0.392 |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 216 | −0.05 | −0.19 to 0.08 | −0.26 to 0.19 | 0.431 | 1.000 |
| Active, Production | 90 | −0.16 | −0.36 to 0.04 | −0.44 to 0.25 | 0.122 | 1.000 |
| Canceled | 281 | 0.01 | −0.11 to 0.12 | −0.14 to 0.13 | 0.908 | 1.000 |
| Respondent role | | | | | | |
| Individual Contributor | 566 | −0.12 | −0.20 to −0.04 | −0.28 to 0.06 | 0.005 | 0.155 |
| Engagement Manager | 150 | −0.08 | −0.24 to 0.08 | −0.24 to 0.10 | 0.311 | 1.000 |
| Portfolio Director | 28 | 0.04 | † | † | 0.823 | 1.000 |
| Customer Management Executive | 1 | ‡ | | | | |
| Vendor type | | | | | | |
| IT services major | 279 | −0.04 | −0.16 to 0.08 | −0.29 to 0.21 | 0.484 | 1.000 |
| BPO specialist | 172 | −0.19 | −0.33 to −0.04 | −0.52 to 0.18 | 0.015 | 0.423 |
| Consulting firm | 102 | −0.12 | −0.30 to 0.08 | −0.43 to 0.36 | 0.247 | 1.000 |
| Boutique or specialist provider | 76 | −0.25 | −0.45 to −0.03 | −0.68 to 0.40 | 0.028 | 0.694 |
| Pure-play agentic AI firm | 67 | 0.04 | −0.20 to 0.28 | −0.44 to 0.52 | 0.752 | 1.000 |
| Not reported, recovered by engagement | 49 | 0.07 | −0.22 to 0.34 | −0.31 to 0.37 | 0.648 | 1.000 |

Note: § Too few engagements for a cluster bootstrap interval. † Base under 30. No interval is reported. ‡ Base under 10. No statistic is reported.
Table 11b. 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 | −0.11 | 0.003 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 150 | −0.12 | −0.28 to 0.04 | 0.013 |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | | |
| CXM | −0.25 | < 0.001 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 42 | −0.25 | −0.52 to 0.05 | 0.380 |
| ITO | 0.03 | 0.688 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 40 | 0.13 | −0.19 to 0.42 | 0.138 |
| BPO | −0.20 | 0.006 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 37 | −0.14 | −0.44 to 0.20 | 0.159 |
| KPO | −0.06 | 0.484 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 31 | −0.19 | −0.51 to 0.17 | 0.275 |
| Institution type | | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | −0.31 | < 0.001 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 24 | −0.27 | † | 0.440 |
| Wealth management and private banking | −0.25 | 0.006 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 23 | −0.23 | † | 0.364 |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | −0.10 | 0.325 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 19 | −0.18 | † | 0.312 |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | −0.09 | 0.497 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 14 | −0.26 | † | 0.447 |
| Commercial and business banking | 0.35 | 0.003 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 13 | 0.31 | † | 0.508 |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | 0.23 | 0.074 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 13 | −0.20 | † | 0.365 |
| Credit card and payments issuing | −0.36 | 0.003 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 12 | −0.25 | † | 0.437 |
| Retail and consumer banking | 0.17 | 0.167 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 12 | 0.25 | † | 0.432 |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | −0.04 | 0.762 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 11 | 0.03 | † | 0.216 |
| Private equity and private capital | −0.60 | < 0.001 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 9 | ‡ | ‡ | |
| Process family | | | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | −0.19 | 0.004 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 47 | −0.09 | −0.36 to 0.21 | 0.070 |
| Technology engineering and operations | −0.01 | 0.851 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 35 | −0.04 | −0.37 to 0.29 | 0.066 |
| Client servicing and communications | −0.19 | 0.091 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 16 | −0.28 | † | 0.473 |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | 0.00 | 0.992 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 15 | −0.20 | † | 0.350 |
| Payments, cards and disputes | −0.20 | 0.101 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 12 | −0.28 | † | 0.478 |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | −0.24 | 0.093 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 9 | ‡ | ‡ | |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | −0.12 | 0.438 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 9 | ‡ | ‡ | |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | −0.14 | 0.405 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 7 | ‡ | ‡ | |
| Class of work | | | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | −0.08 | 0.140 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 76 | −0.13 | −0.34 to 0.10 | 0.060 |
| Corporate Functional | −0.16 | 0.003 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 74 | −0.16 | −0.38 to 0.07 | 0.113 |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | 0.16 | 0.042 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 31 | 0.22 | −0.15 to 0.53 | 0.317 |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 0.00 | 0.958 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 43 | −0.09 | −0.38 to 0.21 | 0.085 |
| Active, Production | −0.07 | 0.490 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 20 | −0.22 | † | 0.362 |
| Canceled | −0.02 | 0.690 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 56 | 0.03 | −0.23 to 0.29 | 0.022 |
| Respondent role | | | | | | | | |
| Individual Contributor | −0.12 | 0.006 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 150 | −0.14 | −0.29 to 0.02 | 0.020 |
| Engagement Manager | −0.08 | 0.350 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 150 | −0.08 | −0.24 to 0.08 | 0.003 |
| Portfolio Director | 0.00 | 0.993 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 28 | 0.04 | † | 0.092 |
| Customer Management Executive | ‡ n = 1 | | | | | | | |
| Vendor type | | | | | | | | |
| IT services major | −0.09 | 0.118 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 59 | −0.07 | −0.32 to 0.19 | 0.034 |
| BPO specialist | −0.16 | 0.031 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 37 | −0.26 | −0.54 to 0.07 | 0.398 |
| Consulting firm | −0.07 | 0.503 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 23 | −0.08 | † | 0.157 |
| Boutique or specialist provider | −0.17 | 0.149 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 17 | −0.18 | † | 0.315 |
| Pure-play agentic AI firm | 0.03 | 0.795 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 14 | 0.11 | † | 0.257 |
| Not reported, recovered by engagement | −0.04 | 0.783 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 40 | 0.15 | −0.17 to 0.44 | 0.170 |

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

The study set r was −0.11 (95% CI −0.18 to −0.04, Holm p 0.114, n = 745 respondents). The association did not hold after Holm control. Equivalence Tests of Null Results found it equivalent to zero inside the bound. Of the 37 tested segment levels, 1 held after Holm control.

## Comparison of Associations Across the Four Measures

Table 12. 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 | −0.10 | −0.25 to 0.06 | 0.233 | Yes | 3 |
| Customer satisfaction | Clean estimate | Engagement | 94 | 0.07 | −0.13 to 0.27 | 0.488 | Yes | 4 |
| Engagement indicator mean | Full | Engagement | 150 | 0.15 | −0.01 to 0.30 | 0.069 | Yes | 1 |
| Intent to leave | Respondent level, clustered | Respondent | 745 | −0.11 | −0.26 to 0.06 | 0.166 | Yes | 2 |

Table 13. Pairwise comparison of associationsTable

| Pair compared | Difference in r | Steiger z | p | Holm p | Reading |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Cancellation rate and customer satisfaction | −0.01 | −0.31 | 0.753 | 1.000 | Do not differ |
| Cancellation rate and engagement indicator mean | −0.05 | −0.84 | 0.402 | 1.000 | Do not differ |
| Cancellation rate and intent to leave | −0.03 | −0.55 | 0.584 | 1.000 | Do not differ |
| Customer satisfaction and engagement indicator mean | −0.04 | −0.95 | 0.341 | 1.000 | Do not differ |
| Customer satisfaction and intent to leave | −0.02 | −0.51 | 0.608 | 1.000 | Do not differ |
| Engagement indicator mean and intent to leave | 0.02 | 0.49 | 0.621 | 1.000 | Do not 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, 0 differed after Holm control.

## Clustering and Effective Sample Size

Table 14. Clustering and effective sample sizeTable

| Statistic | Value | Reading |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Clusters (engagements) | 150 | Engagements with at least one answer. |
| Mean respondents per engagement | 5.3 | Answers per engagement with at least one answer. |
| ICC(1) | 1.00 | Share of variance between engagements. |
| Design effect | 5.29 | 1 plus (mean cluster size minus 1) times ICC. |
| Nominal respondent n | 794 | Respondents who answered. |
| 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 794 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 15. 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 | −0.10 | \|r\| < 0.30 | 0.005 | < 0.001 | Yes | 0.96 | 0.23 | 0.23 |
| Customer satisfaction | 94 | 0.07 | \|r\| < 0.30 | < 0.001 | 0.012 | Yes | 0.84 | 0.29 | 0.23 |
| Engagement indicator mean | 150 | 0.15 | \|r\| < 0.30 | < 0.001 | 0.027 | Yes | 0.96 | 0.23 | 0.23 |
| Intent to leave | 745, effective 140 | −0.11 | \|r\| < 0.30 | 0.009 | < 0.001 | Yes | 0.95 | 0.23 | 0.23 |

Tested null, equivalent to zero: cancellation rate, customer satisfaction, engagement indicator mean and intent to leave. 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 16. Robustness checksTable

| Check | Measure | Primary r | Check r | 95% CI | Change | Conclusion holds |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Rank correlation in place of Pearson | Cancellation rate | −0.10 | −0.16 | a | −0.06 | Yes |
| Rank correlation in place of Pearson | Customer satisfaction | 0.07 | 0.03 | a | −0.04 | Yes |
| Rank correlation in place of Pearson | Engagement indicator mean | 0.15 | 0.10 | a | −0.05 | Yes |
| Rank correlation in place of Pearson | Intent to leave | −0.11 | −0.11 | a | 0.00 | No |
| Non-answers excluded, then imputed at the engagement mean | Intent to leave | −0.11 | −0.11 | a | 0.00 | Yes |
| Active engagements only | Engagement indicator mean | 0.15 | 0.09 | −0.11 to 0.29 | −0.06 | Yes |
| Active engagements only | Intent to leave | −0.11 | −0.05 | −0.14 to 0.04 | 0.06 | Yes |
| Most influential engagement removed (largest Cook's distance) | Cancellation rate | −0.10 | −0.13 | −0.28 to 0.03 | −0.03 | Yes |
| Most influential engagement removed (largest Cook's distance) | Customer satisfaction | 0.07 | 0.20 | 0.00 to 0.39 | 0.13 | No |
| Most influential engagement removed (largest Cook's distance) | Engagement indicator mean | 0.15 | 0.11 | −0.06 to 0.26 | −0.04 | Yes |
| Most influential engagement removed (largest Cook's distance) | Intent to leave | −0.11 | −0.08 | −0.16 to −0.01 | 0.02 | Yes |
| Engagements weighted by respondent count | Cancellation rate | −0.10 | −0.09 | a | 0.00 | Yes |
| Engagements weighted by respondent count | Customer satisfaction | 0.07 | 0.06 | a | −0.02 | Yes |
| Engagements weighted by respondent count | Engagement indicator mean | 0.15 | 0.13 | a | −0.02 | Yes |
| Bootstrap of engagements | Cancellation rate | −0.10 | −0.10 | −0.24 to 0.06 | 0.00 | Yes |
| Bootstrap of engagements | Customer satisfaction | 0.07 | 0.08 | −0.18 to 0.36 | 0.01 | Yes |
| Bootstrap of engagements | Engagement indicator mean | 0.15 | 0.15 | −0.01 to 0.31 | 0.00 | Yes |
| Bootstrap of engagements | Intent to leave | −0.11 | −0.11 | −0.26 to 0.06 | 0.00 | Yes |
| Thin-base segments removed | Cancellation rate | −0.10 | −0.18 | −0.38 to 0.04 | −0.08 | Yes |
| Thin-base segments removed | Customer satisfaction | 0.07 | 0.01 | −0.26 to 0.28 | −0.07 | Yes |
| Thin-base segments removed | Engagement indicator mean | 0.15 | 0.07 | −0.15 to 0.28 | −0.08 | Yes |
| Thin-base segments removed | Intent to leave | −0.11 | −0.06 | −0.16 to 0.04 | 0.05 | 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.

Checks that did not hold: “Rank correlation in place of Pearson” on intent to leave and “Most influential engagement removed (largest Cook's distance)” on customer satisfaction. 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 17. Comparison with the study normTable

| Measure | This indicator, oriented r | Study median, oriented r | Deviation | Fisher z | p | Holm p |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Cancellation rate | 0.10 | 0.60 | −0.50 | −7.17 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Customer satisfaction | 0.11 | 0.72 | −0.61 | −9.69 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Engagement indicator mean | 0.15 | 0.84 | −0.69 | −12.84 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Intent to leave | 0.13 | 0.71 | −0.59 | −9.26 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Spread of deviations | | | 0.19 | | | |
| Verdict | DIVERGENT | | | | | |

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 departed from the study's typical pattern on cancellation rate, customer satisfaction, engagement indicator mean and intent to leave.

## Co-Occurring Indicators and Themes

Figure 3. Other indicators and themes coded in the same written responses (n = 3 responses)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. C036: “What stage is the engagement in?” 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.” C094: “Rate the quality of the customer's data across the systems this engagement depends on.” C096: “Rate how well the customer's data is normalized, with consistent formats and definitions across source systems.” C097: “Rate the maturity of the customer's data governance over the data this engagement uses.” C099: “Rate the readiness of the customer's technical infrastructure to support the agentic AI this engagement deploys.” C101: “Rate the maturity of the customer's processes in scope, meaning how standardized and repeatable they are.” C102: “Rate how consistently the customer performs the same processes across its business units and regions.” C106: “Rate the availability of the customer's subject matter experts when this engagement needs them.” C109: “Rate how quickly the customer responds when this engagement raises issues that need customer action.” C112: “Rate how clearly ownership and accountability for AI are assigned inside the customer organization.”

The responses coded to the indicator were most often also coded to “What stage is the engagement in?” (C036, 2 responses). The second-highest count was shared by 11 indicators at 1 response each. The most frequent theme of the coding rulebook in the same responses was “Positive with an embedded negative” (2 responses).

## Interpretation of the Data

Respondents at Active, Production reported the longest time in the current stage (mean 6.5, n = 98 respondents), and respondents at Active, Build-Out reported the shortest (mean 1.7, n = 167 respondents). LOB Operational respondents reported a longer time in stage (mean 3.7, n = 414 respondents) than Corporate Functional respondents (mean 2.5, n = 380 respondents). Time in stage tracked lifecycle stage without any 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 3 responses, 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.

Customer Management Executive answers were at anecdote strength (n = 2). 20 of 22 checks held. The rank correlation on intent to leave and the most-influential-engagement check on customer satisfaction did not hold.

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. Agreement on the score rested on 1 response second-scored under rulebook 0.6, with the scores agreeing in 1 of 1. This base of second-coded responses is too small for an indicator-level alpha.

## Definitions

Table 18. 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 entered a value. |
| Non-answers | “I do not know” and “I prefer to not answer” are counted separately and are excluded from the mean. |
| 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 19. Sources and provenanceTable

| Item | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Study data | Study Data.xlsx, Data sheet, column C037, sha256 219eba0457274d04 |
| Statistics engine | compute_statistics.py, sha256 738319eef764602b |
| Statistics record | Computed Statistics.json, record C037, 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 | 2,047 of 2,047 |
| 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 | C037.qa.json, sha256 16e8adeb3f4ba634. C037.wfacts.json, sha256 99b62dd6dcfb4c09. Prose C037.json, sha256 efc181e9d9b58cb8 |


## 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/)
- [C036](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-1-c036/)
- [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/)
- [C094](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-2-c094/)
- [C096](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-2-c096/)
- [C097](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-2-c097/)
- [C099](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-2-c099/)
- [C101](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-2-c101/)
- [C102](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-2-c102/)
- [C106](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-2-c106/)
- [C109](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-2-c109/)
- [C112](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-2-c112/)