Source: https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-2-c109/
Author: Phil Hatch
Publisher: Akholi

Rate how quickly the customer responds when this engagement raises issues that need customer action

Study Data · Part 2 · Indicator Deep-Dive Analysis

# Rate how quickly the customer responds when this engagement raises issues that need customer action

Indicator C109 · By Phil Hatch · Akholi · October 9, 2026

← Study Data← Previous indicatorNext indicator →

## On this page

27 sectionsIndicator SpecificationSummary of FindingsDistribution of RatingsCoverage and Origin of Written ResponsesDistribution of Written SentimentCorrespondence Between Ratings and Written SentimentRating Profile of Respondents Providing Written ResponsesDescriptive Statistics by SegmentTests of Difference Between SegmentsWritten Sentiment by SegmentAssociation with Cancellation RateAssociation with Customer SatisfactionAssociation with the Engagement Indicator MeanAssociation with Intent to LeaveAssociation of Written Sentiment with the Study MeasuresComparison of Associations Across the Four MeasuresClustering and Effective Sample SizeEquivalence Tests of Null ResultsRobustness ChecksMeasure Independence and Part-Whole CorrectionComparison with the Study NormComparison of Written Sentiment with Other Part 2 IndicatorsCo-Occurring Indicators and ThemesInterpretation of the DataLimitationsDefinitionsSources and Provenance

## Indicator Specification

Table 1. Indicator specificationTable

| Field | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Indicator code | C109 |
| Question as asked | Rate how quickly the customer responds when this engagement raises issues that need customer action. |
| Failure category | Financial institution readiness |
| Place in the survey | Challenge Deep Dive > 5.1 Customer > Governance and Responsiveness |
| Indicator class | Respondent level |
| Indicator type | Rated, POS |
| Response scale | 1 to 10, higher is the better outcome |
| Answering base | 789 of 850 respondents, across 150 of 150 engagements |
| Non-answers | I do not know 0, I prefer to not answer 0, blank 61 |
| Written responses coded to the indicator | 498 responses from 382 respondents on 142 engagements (144 primary, 354 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 | −0.60 | −0.69 to −0.48 | < 0.001 |
| Customer satisfaction | Clean estimate | 94 engagements | 0.74 | 0.63 to 0.82 | < 0.001 |
| Engagement indicator mean | Leave-one-out | 150 engagements | 0.84 | 0.78 to 0.88 | < 0.001 |
| Intent to leave | Respondent level, clustered | 740 respondents | −0.59 | −0.65 to −0.51 | < 0.001 |

Ratings of how quickly the financial institution responded when the engagement raised issues that needed its action (mean 3.5, median 3.0, n = 789 respondents) were associated with all four study measures. Engagements with higher ratings were canceled less often (r = −0.60, 95% CI −0.69 to −0.48, p < 0.001, n = 150 engagements). Higher ratings came with higher customer satisfaction on active engagements (r = 0.74, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.82, p < 0.001, n = 94 active engagements). Ratings rose with the engagement indicator mean, computed with this item left out (r = 0.84, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.88, p < 0.001, n = 150 engagements). Respondents who gave higher ratings reported lower intent to leave (r = −0.59, cluster bootstrap 95% CI −0.65 to −0.51, p < 0.001, n = 740 respondents). Ratings differed after Holm control by engagement status and lifecycle stage (Welch F 33.76, Holm p < 0.001, omega squared 0.345) and by respondent role (Welch F 18.16, Holm p < 0.001, omega squared 0.022).

The indicator had 498 written responses coded to it, from 382 of 850 respondents on 142 of 150 engagements. Negative responses numbered 437 of the 498 scored responses (87.75%). The strongest negative score, −10, was carried by 208 of the 498 scored responses (41.77%). Secondary responses, written in answer to questions outside the indicator's own survey section, numbered 354 of the 498 responses (71.08%). Respondents who wrote rated the indicator lower than respondents who did not (mean 3.0, n = 358 respondents, against mean 3.9, n = 431 respondents), a difference whose interval excluded zero.

## Distribution of Ratings

Table 3. Distribution of ratings, respondent levelTable

| Answer | Respondents | Share of answered (base 789) | Cumulative share | Engagements with at least one | Share of 150 engagements | Distressed |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | 153 | 19.39% | 19.39% | 61 | 40.67% | Yes |
| 2 | 102 | 12.93% | 32.32% | 68 | 45.33% | Yes |
| 3 | 149 | 18.88% | 51.20% | 83 | 55.33% | Yes |
| 4 | 146 | 18.50% | 69.71% | 96 | 64.00% | No |
| 5 | 125 | 15.84% | 85.55% | 78 | 52.00% | No |
| 6 | 63 | 7.98% | 93.54% | 40 | 26.67% | No |
| 7 | 33 | 4.18% | 97.72% | 18 | 12.00% | No |
| 8 | 14 | 1.77% | 99.49% | 11 | 7.33% | No |
| 9 | 4 | 0.51% | 100.00% | 4 | 2.67% | No |
| 10 | 0 | 0.00% | 100.00% | 0 | 0.00% | No |
| 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 | 789 | 100.00% | | 150 | 100.00% | |

Table 4. Distribution of ratings, engagement levelTable

| Engagement level summary | Engagements | Mean of engagement means | SD | Min | Median | Max | Engagements with a distressed mean | Share of engagements distressed |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Engagement means, goodness view | 150 | 3.5 | 1.5 | 1.0 | 3.4 | 7.7 | 64 | 42.67% |

The study set mean was 3.5 on 789 answering respondents, with a median of 3.0. 404 answers, 51.20% of the 789, were at the distressed end. A distressed engagement mean was recorded in 64 of 150 engagements.

## Coverage and Origin of Written Responses

Figure 1. Written responses coded to the indicator, by the question answered and by written score (n = 498 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. C114 asked: “Add any comments on the customer organization that the ratings in this section do not capture.” C208 asked: “Why did you alter client processes?” C210 asked: “Comment.” C202 asked: “Why did you alter client provided data?” C204 asked: “Comment.” C156 asked: “Add any comments on the joint management of this engagement that the ratings in this section do not capture.” C214 asked: “Why did you alter AI outputs?” C216 asked: “Comment.” C029 asked: “What are your top 3 challenges that reduce your job satisfaction?” C135 asked: “Add any comments on your employer 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 | 144 | 144 | 95 | 86 of 144 (59.72%) | 33 of 144 (22.92%) | 56 of 144 (38.89%) | −2.0 |
| Secondary | 354 | 282 | 127 | 351 of 354 (99.15%) | 175 of 354 (49.44%) | 3 of 354 (0.85%) | −7.4 |
| All responses | 498 | 382 | 142 | 437 of 498 (87.75%) | 208 of 498 (41.77%) | 59 of 498 (11.85%) | −5.8 |

Of the 498 responses, 144 (28.92%) were primary and 354 (71.08%) were secondary. The secondary responses came from 282 respondents on 127 engagements, in answer to 9 questions outside the indicator's own survey section (most often C208 with 152 responses, C210 with 66 responses and C202 with 54 responses). Both a primary and a secondary response came from 44 respondents. Among the Part 2 indicators with 30 or more scored responses, the secondary share of the indicator ranked 12 of 71 from the highest. The median secondary share was 18.92% across the 71 indicators.

Negative responses made up 351 of the 354 secondary responses (99.15%), against 86 of the 144 primary responses (59.72%). The difference reached significance at 0.05 (Fisher exact p < 0.001, n = 498 responses). The share of negative responses was larger among secondary responses than among primary responses.

## Distribution of Written Sentiment

Figure 2. Distribution of written sentiment (n = 498 scored responses)ExhibitNote: Column height is the share of all scored responses. Labels give the count and the share.
Table 6. Summary statistics of written sentimentTable

| Statistic | Value | Basis |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Mean written score | −5.8 | 95% CI −6.3 to −5.3, cluster bootstrap by engagement, 10,000 draws, n = 498 responses |
| Median written score | −5.0 | n = 498 responses |
| Negative responses | 437 of 498 (87.75%) | 95% CI 84.14% to 91.00% of 498 responses, cluster bootstrap by engagement |
| Strongest negative responses (−10) | 208 of 498 (41.77%) | Statements of totality, constancy or serious harm |
| Positive responses | 59 of 498 (11.85%) | +5 or +10 |
| Net balance | −75.90 percentage points | Share positive minus share negative, base 498 responses |
| Respondent-level mean | −5.4 | Mean of each respondent's own mean written score, n = 382 respondents |

Of the 498 scored responses, 437 (87.75%) were negative, 208 (41.77%) carried the strongest negative score and 59 (11.85%) were positive. The responses had a mean written score of −5.8 (95% CI −6.3 to −5.3, n = 498 responses on 142 engagements).

## Correspondence Between Ratings and Written Sentiment

Figure 3. Written score against the respondent's rating of the indicator (n = 468 responses with a rating)ExhibitNote: Written score runs from −10 at the left to +10 at the right, and the rating rises from 1 at the bottom to 10 at the top. Marker area is proportional to the number of responses at each combination of written score and rating. Ratings of 3 or below are the distressed range. Of the 498 scored responses, 30 had no rating and were excluded.

Respondents who rated the indicator 3 or below wrote 302 of the 407 negative responses with a rating. Written score and rating showed a weak positive correlation that reached significance at 0.05 (Spearman rho 0.28, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.38, p < 0.001, n = 468 responses on 140 engagements). Its interval excluded zero. Where a written score diverges from the same respondent's rating, the rating is the measure of the indicator.

## Rating Profile of Respondents Providing Written Responses

Figure 4. Distribution of ratings, respondents who wrote about the indicator and respondents who did notExhibitNote: Each group sums to 100% of its own respondents with a rating: 358 who wrote about the indicator and 431 who did not. 

Respondents who wrote about the indicator rated it 0.8 points lower than respondents who did not (mean 3.0, n = 358 respondents, against mean 3.9, n = 431 respondents, difference 95% CI −1.1 to −0.6, cluster bootstrap by engagement). The difference was computed before rounding, so it differs by 0.1 from the difference of the two printed means. The interval of the difference excluded zero. Ratings of 3 or below came from 229 of the 358 respondents who wrote and gave a rating (63.97%), against 175 of the 431 respondents who did not write and gave a rating (40.60%). Respondents who wrote formed a self-selected group and not a random sample of the answering base, because written responses were voluntary.

## Descriptive Statistics by Segment

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

| Segment | Base | Answered | Answer rate | Engagements | Mean | 95% CI | SD |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Study set | 850 | 789 | 92.82% of 850 | 150 | 3.5 | 3.4 to 3.6 | 1.9 |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | |
| CXM | 232 | 218 | 93.97% of 232 | 42 | 3.7 | 3.5 to 4.0 | 2.0 |
| ITO | 244 | 226 | 92.62% of 244 | 40 | 3.5 | 3.3 to 3.7 | 1.7 |
| BPO | 209 | 190 | 90.91% of 209 | 37 | 3.4 | 3.2 to 3.7 | 1.8 |
| KPO | 165 | 155 | 93.94% of 165 | 31 | 3.4 | 3.0 to 3.7 | 2.0 |
| Institution type | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | 132 | 122 | 92.42% of 132 | 24 | 3.4 | 3.1 to 3.8 | 1.9 |
| Wealth management and private banking | 140 | 129 | 92.14% of 140 | 23 | 3.4 | 3.1 to 3.7 | 1.7 |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | 105 | 94 | 89.52% of 105 | 19 | 3.1 | 2.8 to 3.5 | 1.7 |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | 78 | 73 | 93.59% of 78 | 14 | 4.1 | 3.6 to 4.6 | 2.2 |
| Commercial and business banking | 82 | 77 | 93.90% of 82 | 13 | 3.9 | 3.4 to 4.3 | 2.0 |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | 71 | 66 | 92.96% of 71 | 13 | 3.4 | 2.9 to 3.8 | 1.8 |
| Credit card and payments issuing | 73 | 68 | 93.15% of 73 | 12 | 3.1 | 2.7 to 3.5 | 1.7 |
| Retail and consumer banking | 73 | 68 | 93.15% of 73 | 12 | 3.6 | 3.2 to 4.0 | 1.7 |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | 57 | 57 | 100.00% of 57 | 11 | 3.8 | 3.3 to 4.3 | 1.9 |
| Private equity and private capital | 39 | 35 | 89.74% of 39 | 9 | 3.7 | 3.1 to 4.4 | 1.9 |
| Process family | | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | 248 | 233 | 93.95% of 248 | 47 | 3.5 | 3.2 to 3.7 | 2.0 |
| Technology engineering and operations | 204 | 189 | 92.65% of 204 | 35 | 3.6 | 3.3 to 3.8 | 1.8 |
| Client servicing and communications | 94 | 88 | 93.62% of 94 | 16 | 3.9 | 3.4 to 4.3 | 2.0 |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | 80 | 73 | 91.25% of 80 | 15 | 3.3 | 2.9 to 3.7 | 1.7 |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 73 | 62 | 84.93% of 73 | 12 | 3.3 | 2.9 to 3.7 | 1.5 |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | 57 | 53 | 92.98% of 57 | 9 | 4.2 | 3.6 to 4.8 | 2.1 |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | 51 | 49 | 96.08% of 51 | 9 | 3.4 | 2.9 to 3.8 | 1.6 |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | 43 | 42 | 97.67% of 43 | 7 | 2.7 | 2.2 to 3.2 | 1.6 |
| Class of work | | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | 451 | 418 | 92.68% of 451 | 76 | 3.5 | 3.4 to 3.7 | 1.9 |
| Corporate Functional | 399 | 371 | 92.98% of 399 | 74 | 3.5 | 3.3 to 3.7 | 1.8 |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | 175 | 161 | 92.00% of 175 | 31 | 4.1 | 3.9 to 4.3 | 1.6 |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 250 | 235 | 94.00% of 250 | 43 | 4.2 | 4.0 to 4.5 | 1.9 |
| Active, Production | 103 | 96 | 93.20% of 103 | 20 | 4.4 | 4.0 to 4.7 | 1.6 |
| Canceled | 322 | 297 | 92.24% of 322 | 56 | 2.4 | 2.2 to 2.5 | 1.5 |
| Respondent role | | | | | | | |
| Individual Contributor | 667 | 609 | 91.30% of 667 | 150 | 3.4 | 3.2 to 3.5 | 1.8 |
| Engagement Manager | 150 | 150 | 100.00% of 150 | 150 | 3.9 | 3.6 to 4.2 | 1.9 |
| Portfolio Director | 31 | 29 | 93.55% of 31 | 29 | 4.6 | † | 1.1 |
| Customer Management Executive | 2 | 1 | 1 of 2 | 1 | ‡ | | |
| Vendor type | | | | | | | |
| IT services major | 316 | 292 | 92.41% of 316 | 59 | 3.6 | 3.4 to 3.8 | 1.8 |
| BPO specialist | 198 | 186 | 93.94% of 198 | 37 | 3.1 | 2.9 to 3.4 | 1.9 |
| Consulting firm | 117 | 110 | 94.02% of 117 | 23 | 3.7 | 3.3 to 4.1 | 2.0 |
| Boutique or specialist provider | 87 | 80 | 91.95% of 87 | 17 | 3.6 | 3.1 to 4.0 | 2.0 |
| Pure-play agentic AI firm | 75 | 67 | 89.33% of 75 | 14 | 3.9 | 3.4 to 4.3 | 1.9 |
| Not reported, recovered by engagement | 57 | 54 | 94.74% of 57 | 44 | 3.2 | 2.8 to 3.7 | 1.6 |

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

| Segment | Min | Q1 | Median | Q3 | Max | Distressed n | Distressed % |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Study set | 1.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 9.0 | 404 | 51.20% |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | |
| CXM | 1.0 | 2.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 9.0 | 104 | 47.71% |
| ITO | 1.0 | 2.0 | 3.5 | 5.0 | 8.0 | 113 | 50.00% |
| BPO | 1.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 8.0 | 97 | 51.05% |
| KPO | 1.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 9.0 | 90 | 58.06% |
| Institution type | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | 1.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 9.0 | 65 | 53.28% |
| Wealth management and private banking | 1.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 8.0 | 66 | 51.16% |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | 1.0 | 1.3 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 7.0 | 55 | 58.51% |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | 1.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 6.0 | 9.0 | 29 | 39.73% |
| Commercial and business banking | 1.0 | 2.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 9.0 | 36 | 46.75% |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | 1.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 9.0 | 38 | 57.58% |
| Credit card and payments issuing | 1.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 4.3 | 7.0 | 41 | 60.29% |
| Retail and consumer banking | 1.0 | 2.8 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 7.0 | 32 | 47.06% |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | 1.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 8.0 | 26 | 45.61% |
| Private equity and private capital | 1.0 | 2.5 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 8.0 | 16 | 45.71% |
| Process family | | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | 1.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 8.0 | 118 | 50.64% |
| Technology engineering and operations | 1.0 | 2.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 9.0 | 94 | 49.74% |
| Client servicing and communications | 1.0 | 2.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 9.0 | 40 | 45.45% |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | 1.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 7.0 | 38 | 52.05% |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 1.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 4.8 | 6.0 | 33 | 53.23% |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | 1.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 6.0 | 9.0 | 23 | 43.40% |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | 1.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 28 | 57.14% |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | 1.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 4.0 | 6.0 | 30 | 71.43% |
| Class of work | | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | 1.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 9.0 | 218 | 52.15% |
| Corporate Functional | 1.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 8.0 | 186 | 50.13% |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | 1.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 9.0 | 62 | 38.51% |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 1.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 9.0 | 89 | 37.87% |
| Active, Production | 1.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 9.0 | 27 | 28.13% |
| Canceled | 1.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 7.0 | 226 | 76.09% |
| Respondent role | | | | | | | |
| Individual Contributor | 1.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 9.0 | 339 | 55.67% |
| Engagement Manager | 1.0 | 2.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 9.0 | 61 | 40.67% |
| Portfolio Director | 1.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 3 | 10.34% |
| Customer Management Executive | ‡ n = 1 | | | | | | |
| Vendor type | | | | | | | |
| IT services major | 1.0 | 2.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 9.0 | 141 | 48.29% |
| BPO specialist | 1.0 | 1.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 8.0 | 111 | 59.68% |
| Consulting firm | 1.0 | 2.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 9.0 | 52 | 47.27% |
| Boutique or specialist provider | 1.0 | 1.8 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 9.0 | 37 | 46.25% |
| Pure-play agentic AI firm | 1.0 | 2.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 7.0 | 29 | 43.28% |
| Not reported, recovered by engagement | 1.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 7.0 | 34 | 62.96% |

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

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

## Tests of Difference Between Segments

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

| Segment family | Welch F | df | p | Holm p | Omega squared | 90% CI |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Outsourcing model | 0.29 | 3, 78.3 | 0.833 | 1.000 | −0.014 | 0.000 to 0.022 |
| Institution type | 0.55 | 8, 49.1 | 0.814 | 1.000 | −0.023 | 0.000 to 0.035 |
| Process family | 0.25 | 4, 40.0 | 0.906 | 1.000 | −0.024 | 0.000 to 0.014 |
| Class of work | 0.05 | 1, 147.3 | 0.820 | 1.000 | −0.006 | 0.000 to 0.017 |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | 33.76 | 3, 59.7 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.345 | 0.249 to 0.438 |
| Respondent role | 18.16 | 2, 79.2 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.022 | 0.009 to 0.044 |
| Vendor type | 3.01 | 5, 230.7 | 0.012 | 0.059 | 0.012 | 0.002 to 0.031 |

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

| Segment family | Kruskal-Wallis H | p | Distressed chi-square | df | p | Cramer's V | Levels left out |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Outsourcing model | 0.66 | 0.884 | 1.97 | 3 | 0.578 | 0.11 | None |
| Institution type | 3.54 | 0.896 | 3.61 | 8 | 0.898, simulated | 0.16 | a |
| Process family | 0.72 | 0.949 | 1.79 | 4 | 0.787, simulated | 0.12 | b |
| Class of work | 0.01 | 0.919 | 0.04 | 1 | 0.850 | 0.02 | None |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | 60.21 | < 0.001 | 42.87 | 3 | < 0.001 | 0.53 | None |
| Respondent role | 23.63 | < 0.001 | 30.89 | 2 | < 0.001 | 0.20 | c |
| Vendor type | 15.45 | 0.009 | 12.48 | 5 | 0.029 | 0.13 | 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 = 1.

Engagement families were tested on engagement means, and respondent role and vendor type were tested on respondents. A distressed p marked exact is a Fisher exact test for a two by two table, and one marked simulated is a Monte Carlo test run until its p is stable to the third decimal, both used where an expected count is under 5. Engagement status and lifecycle stage differed after Holm control (Welch F 33.76, Holm p < 0.001, tested on engagement means). In Descriptive Statistics by Segment, Active, Production had the highest mean, 4.4 (n = 96 respondents), and Canceled the lowest, 2.4 (n = 297 respondents). Respondent role differed after Holm control (Welch F 18.16, Holm p < 0.001, tested on respondents). In Descriptive Statistics by Segment, Portfolio Director had the highest mean, 4.6 (n = 29 respondents), and Individual Contributor the lowest, 3.4 (n = 609 respondents). No difference held after Holm control for outsourcing model, institution type, process family, class of work and vendor type.

## Written Sentiment by Segment

Figure 5. Written sentiment by engagement status and lifecycle stage, share of each group's responsesExhibitNote: Segments run from −10, strongly negative, in full amber at the left to +10, strongly positive, in the darkest gray at the right. Each bar is 100% of its group's responses. Segments of 12% or more are labeled, as a share on groups of 10 responses or more and as a count on smaller groups.
Table 9. Written sentiment by segmentTable

| Segment | Responses | Respondents | Engagements | Mean written score | Negative | Strongest negative (−10) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | 75 | 65 | 29 | −4.7 | 61 of 75 (81.33%) | 24 of 75 (32.00%) |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 135 | 105 | 40 | −4.9 | 115 of 135 (85.19%) | 37 of 135 (27.41%) |
| Active, Production | 52 | 41 | 18 | −5.5 | 44 of 52 (84.62%) | 22 of 52 (42.31%) |
| Canceled | 236 | 171 | 55 | −6.8 | 217 of 236 (91.95%) | 125 of 236 (52.97%) |
| Respondent role | | | | | | |
| Individual Contributor | 446 | 336 | 138 | −6.3 | 405 of 446 (90.81%) | 197 of 446 (44.17%) |
| Engagement Manager | 46 | 41 | 41 | −2.3 | 29 of 46 (63.04%) | 11 of 46 (23.91%) |
| Portfolio Director | 6 | 5 | 5 | ‡ | 3 of 6 | 0 of 6 |
| Customer Management Executive | 0 | 0 | 0 | No responses | | |

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

Scored responses came from 29 engagements in the Active, Build-Out group, 40 engagements in the Active, Transition/Cut-Over group, 18 engagements in the Active, Production group and 55 engagements in the Canceled group. A test of mean written scores across the groups, with each engagement counted once, showed a difference that reached significance at 0.05 (Kruskal-Wallis H 10.79, df 3, p = 0.013, n = 142 engagements). Among the groups with 10 or more responses, the lowest mean written score came from the Canceled group (−6.8, n = 236 responses). The highest came from the Active, Build-Out group (−4.7, n = 75 responses).

The role test compared individual contributors and engagement managers, the roles with 30 or more scored responses. A test of mean written scores between the two roles, with each respondent counted once, showed a difference that reached significance at 0.05 (Kruskal-Wallis H 16.58, df 1, p < 0.001, n = 377 respondents). Of the two roles compared, the lower mean written score came from individual contributors (−6.3, n = 446 responses). The higher came from engagement managers (−2.3, n = 46 responses). Roles under 10 responses are reported as counts only. Among portfolio directors, negative responses numbered 3 of 6.

## Association with Cancellation Rate

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

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

| Segment | Engagements | Canceled | Cancellation rate | Point-biserial r | 95% CI | p | Holm p |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Study set | 150 | 56 | 37.33% of 150 | −0.60 | −0.69 to −0.48 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | |
| CXM | 42 | 15 | 35.71% of 42 | −0.58 | −0.75 to −0.33 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| ITO | 40 | 15 | 37.50% of 40 | −0.54 | −0.73 to −0.27 | < 0.001 | 0.004 |
| BPO | 37 | 14 | 37.84% of 37 | −0.65 | −0.81 to −0.41 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| KPO | 31 | 12 | 38.71% of 31 | −0.65 | −0.82 to −0.39 | < 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Institution type | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | 24 | 13 | 54.17% of 24 | −0.79 | † | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Wealth management and private banking | 23 | 8 | 34.78% of 23 | −0.59 | † | 0.003 | 0.030 |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | 19 | 9 | 47.37% of 19 | −0.43 | † | 0.065 | 0.194 |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | 14 | 5 | 35.71% of 14 | −0.67 | † | 0.009 | 0.071 |
| Commercial and business banking | 13 | 4 | 30.77% of 13 | −0.56 | † | 0.048 | 0.193 |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | 13 | 3 | 23.08% of 13 | −0.49 | † | 0.093 | 0.194 |
| Credit card and payments issuing | 12 | 5 | 41.67% of 12 | −0.53 | † | 0.074 | 0.194 |
| Retail and consumer banking | 12 | 4 | 33.33% of 12 | −0.85 | † | < 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | 11 | 3 | 27.27% of 11 | −0.66 | † | 0.027 | 0.155 |
| Private equity and private capital | 9 | 2 | 2 of 9 | ‡ | | | |
| Process family | | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | 47 | 19 | 40.43% of 47 | −0.62 | −0.77 to −0.41 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Technology engineering and operations | 35 | 10 | 28.57% of 35 | −0.57 | −0.76 to −0.29 | < 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Client servicing and communications | 16 | 9 | 56.25% of 16 | −0.63 | † | 0.009 | 0.071 |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | 15 | 8 | 53.33% of 15 | −0.57 | † | 0.026 | 0.155 |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 12 | 2 | 16.67% of 12 | −0.83 | † | < 0.001 | 0.010 |
| 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 | −0.56 | −0.70 to −0.38 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Corporate Functional | 74 | 26 | 35.14% of 74 | −0.64 | −0.76 to −0.49 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | 31 | 0 | 0.00% of 31 | Not computable, no variation in cancellation |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 43 | 0 | 0.00% of 43 | Not computable, no variation in cancellation |
| Active, Production | 20 | 0 | 0.00% of 20 | Not computable, no variation in cancellation |
| Canceled | 56 | 56 | 100.00% of 56 | Not computable, no variation in cancellation |

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

| Segment | Odds ratio per point | 95% CI | AUC | Rate, distressed engagements | Rate, other engagements | Fisher p | TOST p |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Study set | 0.22 | 0.14 to 0.37 | 0.88 | 67.19% of 64 | 15.12% of 86 | < 0.001 | 1.000 |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | |
| CXM | 0.25 | 0.10 to 0.62 | 0.85 | 62.50% of 16 | 19.23% of 26 | 0.008 | 0.986 |
| ITO | 0.27 | 0.11 to 0.67 | 0.83 | 66.67% of 15 | 20.00% of 25 | 0.006 | 0.963 |
| BPO | 0.16 | 0.05 to 0.52 | 0.90 | 70.59% of 17 | 10.00% of 20 | < 0.001 | 0.997 |
| KPO | 0.19 | 0.06 to 0.65 | 0.91 | 68.75% of 16 | 6.67% of 15 | < 0.001 | 0.993 |
| Institution type | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | 0.07 | † n = 24 | 0.97 | 84.62% of 13 | 18.18% of 11 | 0.003 | 1.000 |
| Wealth management and private banking | 0.16 | † n = 23 | 0.83 | 5 of 8 | 20.00% of 15 | 0.071 | 0.947 |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | 0.44 | † n = 19 | 0.73 | 6 of 8 | 27.27% of 11 | 0.070 | 0.729 |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | 0.31 | † n = 14 | 0.91 | 4 of 5 | 1 of 9 | 0.023 | 0.951 |
| Commercial and business banking | 0.04 | † n = 13 | 0.92 | 3 of 5 | 1 of 8 | 0.217 | 0.843 |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | 0.09 | † n = 13 | 0.87 | 3 of 7 | 0 of 6 | 0.192 | 0.757 |
| Credit card and payments issuing | 0.25 | † n = 12 | 0.76 | 3 of 6 | 2 of 6 | 1.000 | 0.804 |
| Retail and consumer banking | 0.07 | † n = 12 | 1.00 | 4 of 4 | 0 of 8 | 0.002 | 0.998 |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | 0.19 | † n = 11 | 1.00 | 3 of 5 | 0 of 6 | 0.061 | 0.915 |
| Private equity and private capital | ‡ n = 9 | | | | | | |
| Process family | | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | 0.24 | 0.11 to 0.57 | 0.88 | 69.57% of 23 | 12.50% of 24 | < 0.001 | 0.997 |
| Technology engineering and operations | 0.13 | 0.03 to 0.57 | 0.90 | 61.54% of 13 | 9.09% of 22 | 0.002 | 0.971 |
| Client servicing and communications | 0.25 | † n = 16 | 0.86 | 5 of 6 | 40.00% of 10 | 0.145 | 0.940 |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | 0.33 | † n = 15 | 0.84 | 5 of 6 | 3 of 9 | 0.119 | 0.881 |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 0.17 | † n = 12 | 1.00 | 2 of 4 | 0 of 8 | 0.091 | 0.995 |
| 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 | 0.29 | 0.16 to 0.53 | 0.85 | 66.67% of 33 | 18.60% of 43 | < 0.001 | 0.997 |
| Corporate Functional | 0.14 | 0.06 to 0.36 | 0.91 | 67.74% of 31 | 11.63% of 43 | < 0.001 | 1.000 |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | Not computable, no variation in cancellation |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | Not computable, no variation in cancellation |
| Active, Production | Not computable, no variation in cancellation |
| Canceled | Not computable, no variation in cancellation |

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

The study set r was −0.60 (95% CI −0.69 to −0.48, Holm p < 0.001, n = 150 engagements). Of the 20 tested segment levels, 12 held after Holm control.

## Association with Customer Satisfaction

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

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

| Segment | Active engagements | Clean r | 95% CI | p | Holm p | Spearman rho | p |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Study set | 94 | 0.74 | 0.63 to 0.82 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.74 | < 0.001 |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | |
| CXM | 27 | 0.79 | † | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.75 | < 0.001 |
| ITO | 25 | 0.71 | † | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.76 | < 0.001 |
| BPO | 23 | 0.76 | † | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.77 | < 0.001 |
| KPO | 19 | 0.77 | † | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.79 | < 0.001 |
| Institution type | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | 11 | 0.85 | † | 0.001 | 0.005 | 0.88 | < 0.001 |
| Wealth management and private banking | 15 | 0.60 | † | 0.018 | 0.036 | 0.58 | 0.024 |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | 10 | 0.63 | † | 0.051 | 0.051 | 0.69 | 0.029 |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | 9 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Commercial and business banking | 9 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | 10 | 0.85 | † | 0.002 | 0.007 | 0.79 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.80 | † | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.81 | < 0.001 |
| Technology engineering and operations | 25 | 0.77 | † | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.79 | < 0.001 |
| Client servicing and communications | 7 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | 7 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 10 | 0.82 | † | 0.004 | 0.011 | 0.68 | 0.031 |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | 8 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | 5 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | 4 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Class of work | | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | 46 | 0.78 | 0.64 to 0.87 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.77 | < 0.001 |
| Corporate Functional | 48 | 0.68 | 0.50 to 0.81 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.70 | < 0.001 |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | 31 | 0.65 | 0.38 to 0.82 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.61 | < 0.001 |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 43 | 0.79 | 0.64 to 0.88 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.78 | < 0.001 |
| Active, Production | 20 | 0.73 | † | < 0.001 | 0.001 | 0.75 | < 0.001 |
| Canceled | 0 | a |

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

| Segment | Slope, points per rating point | 95% CI | R squared | TOST p | All engagements | Descriptive r | p |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Study set | 6.23 | 5.07 to 7.40 | 0.55 | 1.000 | 150 | 0.73 | < 0.001 |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | |
| CXM | 6.26 | † n = 27 | 0.63 | 1.000 | 42 | 0.74 | < 0.001 |
| ITO | 6.26 | † n = 25 | 0.50 | 0.996 | 40 | 0.64 | < 0.001 |
| BPO | 6.80 | † n = 23 | 0.58 | 0.999 | 37 | 0.78 | < 0.001 |
| KPO | 6.38 | † n = 19 | 0.59 | 0.998 | 31 | 0.81 | < 0.001 |
| Institution type | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | 6.46 | † n = 11 | 0.72 | 0.996 | 24 | 0.84 | < 0.001 |
| Wealth management and private banking | 4.92 | † n = 15 | 0.36 | 0.908 | 23 | 0.65 | < 0.001 |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | 7.01 | † n = 10 | 0.40 | 0.872 | 19 | 0.53 | 0.019 |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | ‡ n = 9 | | | | | | |
| Commercial and business banking | ‡ n = 9 | | | | | | |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | 7.38 | † n = 10 | 0.73 | 0.994 | 13 | 0.77 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 6.71 | † n = 28 | 0.64 | 1.000 | 47 | 0.77 | < 0.001 |
| Technology engineering and operations | 6.09 | † n = 25 | 0.60 | 1.000 | 35 | 0.73 | < 0.001 |
| Client servicing and communications | ‡ n = 7 | | | | | | |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | ‡ n = 7 | | | | | | |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 11.49 | † n = 10 | 0.67 | 0.987 | 12 | 0.94 | < 0.001 |
| 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 | 6.74 | 5.12 to 8.36 | 0.61 | 1.000 | 76 | 0.72 | < 0.001 |
| Corporate Functional | 5.57 | 3.81 to 7.33 | 0.47 | 1.000 | 74 | 0.75 | < 0.001 |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | 5.20 | 2.88 to 7.51 | 0.42 | 0.993 | 31 | 0.65 | < 0.001 |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 6.32 | 4.77 to 7.87 | 0.62 | 1.000 | 43 | 0.79 | < 0.001 |
| Active, Production | 7.46 | † | 0.54 | 0.995 | 20 | 0.73 | < 0.001 |
| Canceled | no clean estimate, canceled engagements fall outside the active population |

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

The study set r was 0.74 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.82, Holm p < 0.001, n = 94 engagements). Of the 16 tested segment levels, 15 held after Holm control.

## Association with the Engagement Indicator Mean

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

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

| Segment | Engagements | Leave-one-out r | 95% CI | p | Holm p | Spearman rho | p |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Study set | 150 | 0.84 | 0.78 to 0.88 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.83 | < 0.001 |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | |
| CXM | 42 | 0.84 | 0.72 to 0.91 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.81 | < 0.001 |
| ITO | 40 | 0.80 | 0.65 to 0.89 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.80 | < 0.001 |
| BPO | 37 | 0.79 | 0.63 to 0.89 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.82 | < 0.001 |
| KPO | 31 | 0.90 | 0.80 to 0.95 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.88 | < 0.001 |
| Institution type | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | 24 | 0.92 | † | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.86 | < 0.001 |
| Wealth management and private banking | 23 | 0.80 | † | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.83 | < 0.001 |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | 19 | 0.79 | † | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.76 | < 0.001 |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | 14 | 0.87 | † | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.87 | < 0.001 |
| Commercial and business banking | 13 | 0.83 | † | < 0.001 | 0.003 | 0.79 | 0.001 |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | 13 | 0.84 | † | < 0.001 | 0.002 | 0.78 | 0.002 |
| Credit card and payments issuing | 12 | 0.80 | † | 0.002 | 0.004 | 0.66 | 0.020 |
| Retail and consumer banking | 12 | 0.76 | † | 0.005 | 0.005 | 0.65 | 0.022 |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | 11 | 0.87 | † | < 0.001 | 0.003 | 0.87 | < 0.001 |
| Private equity and private capital | 9 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Process family | | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | 47 | 0.83 | 0.72 to 0.90 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.83 | < 0.001 |
| Technology engineering and operations | 35 | 0.87 | 0.76 to 0.94 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.87 | < 0.001 |
| Client servicing and communications | 16 | 0.84 | † | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.75 | < 0.001 |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | 15 | 0.76 | † | 0.001 | 0.003 | 0.78 | < 0.001 |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 12 | 0.90 | † | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.87 | < 0.001 |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | 9 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | 9 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | 7 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Class of work | | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | 76 | 0.86 | 0.79 to 0.91 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.83 | < 0.001 |
| Corporate Functional | 74 | 0.81 | 0.71 to 0.88 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.80 | < 0.001 |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | 31 | 0.75 | 0.53 to 0.87 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.71 | < 0.001 |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 43 | 0.86 | 0.75 to 0.92 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.87 | < 0.001 |
| Active, Production | 20 | 0.76 | † | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.77 | < 0.001 |
| Canceled | 56 | 0.44 | 0.20 to 0.63 | < 0.001 | 0.003 | 0.47 | < 0.001 |

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

| Segment | r with indicator included | Change in r | Slope | 95% CI | R squared | TOST p | Equivalent |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Study set | 0.84 | 0.00 | 0.80 | 0.72 to 0.89 | 0.70 | 1.000 | No |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | |
| CXM | 0.84 | 0.00 | 0.79 | 0.62 to 0.95 | 0.70 | 1.000 | No |
| ITO | 0.81 | 0.00 | 0.77 | 0.58 to 0.96 | 0.64 | 1.000 | No |
| BPO | 0.80 | 0.00 | 0.76 | 0.56 to 0.96 | 0.63 | 1.000 | No |
| KPO | 0.90 | 0.00 | 0.87 | 0.71 to 1.04 | 0.81 | 1.000 | No |
| Institution type | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | 0.92 | 0.00 | 0.88 | † n = 24 | 0.84 | 1.000 | No |
| Wealth management and private banking | 0.80 | 0.00 | 0.87 | † n = 23 | 0.64 | 1.000 | No |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | 0.80 | 0.00 | 0.70 | † n = 19 | 0.63 | 0.999 | No |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | 0.88 | 0.00 | 0.68 | † n = 14 | 0.77 | 1.000 | No |
| Commercial and business banking | 0.83 | 0.00 | 0.69 | † n = 13 | 0.68 | 0.997 | No |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | 0.84 | 0.00 | 0.80 | † n = 13 | 0.71 | 0.998 | No |
| Credit card and payments issuing | 0.80 | 0.00 | 0.82 | † n = 12 | 0.64 | 0.990 | No |
| Retail and consumer banking | 0.76 | 0.00 | 0.91 | † n = 12 | 0.57 | 0.979 | No |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | 0.87 | 0.00 | 0.83 | † n = 11 | 0.75 | 0.998 | No |
| Private equity and private capital | ‡ n = 9 | | | | | | |
| Process family | | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | 0.84 | 0.00 | 0.82 | 0.66 to 0.99 | 0.69 | 1.000 | No |
| Technology engineering and operations | 0.88 | 0.00 | 0.78 | 0.62 to 0.93 | 0.76 | 1.000 | No |
| Client servicing and communications | 0.84 | 0.00 | 0.79 | † n = 16 | 0.71 | 1.000 | No |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | 0.76 | 0.00 | 0.73 | † n = 15 | 0.57 | 0.991 | No |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 0.90 | 0.00 | 0.91 | † n = 12 | 0.81 | 1.000 | 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 | 0.87 | 0.00 | 0.80 | 0.69 to 0.91 | 0.74 | 1.000 | No |
| Corporate Functional | 0.81 | 0.00 | 0.81 | 0.67 to 0.94 | 0.65 | 1.000 | No |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | 0.75 | 0.00 | 0.66 | 0.44 to 0.88 | 0.56 | 1.000 | No |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 0.86 | 0.00 | 0.65 | 0.53 to 0.78 | 0.74 | 1.000 | No |
| Active, Production | 0.76 | 0.00 | 0.91 | † n = 20 | 0.57 | 0.997 | No |
| Canceled | 0.45 | −0.01 | 0.29 | 0.13 to 0.45 | 0.19 | 0.874 | No |

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

The study set r was 0.84 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.88, Holm p < 0.001, n = 150 engagements). Of the 24 tested segment levels, 24 held after Holm control.

## Association with Intent to Leave

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

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

| Segment | Respondents | r | 95% CI | Cluster bootstrap 95% CI | p | Holm p |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Study set | 740 | −0.59 | −0.63 to −0.54 | −0.66 to −0.52 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | |
| CXM | 203 | −0.61 | −0.69 to −0.52 | −0.73 to −0.47 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| ITO | 216 | −0.50 | −0.59 to −0.39 | −0.65 to −0.33 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| BPO | 177 | −0.61 | −0.69 to −0.51 | −0.72 to −0.48 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| KPO | 144 | −0.64 | −0.72 to −0.53 | −0.76 to −0.47 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Institution type | | | | | | |
| Asset management | 112 | −0.75 | −0.82 to −0.65 | −0.83 to −0.57 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Wealth management and private banking | 121 | −0.53 | −0.65 to −0.39 | −0.71 to −0.33 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | 88 | −0.39 | −0.56 to −0.20 | −0.63 to −0.12 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | 66 | −0.79 | −0.87 to −0.68 | −0.90 to −0.61 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Commercial and business banking | 71 | −0.56 | −0.70 to −0.37 | −0.77 to −0.23 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | 65 | −0.49 | −0.65 to −0.28 | −0.72 to −0.19 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Credit card and payments issuing | 65 | −0.46 | −0.63 to −0.24 | −0.74 to −0.14 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Retail and consumer banking | 63 | −0.60 | −0.74 to −0.41 | −0.77 to −0.33 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | 55 | −0.71 | −0.82 to −0.55 | −0.85 to −0.45 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Private equity and private capital | 34 | −0.69 | −0.83 to −0.46 | § n = 9 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Process family | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | 211 | −0.67 | −0.74 to −0.58 | −0.76 to −0.56 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Technology engineering and operations | 180 | −0.54 | −0.64 to −0.43 | −0.68 to −0.40 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Client servicing and communications | 83 | −0.66 | −0.77 to −0.52 | −0.81 to −0.27 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | 69 | −0.47 | −0.64 to −0.27 | −0.73 to −0.05 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 60 | −0.62 | −0.75 to −0.43 | −0.83 to −0.30 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | 49 | −0.56 | −0.73 to −0.34 | § n = 9 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | 47 | −0.59 | −0.75 to −0.36 | § n = 9 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | 41 | −0.72 | −0.84 to −0.53 | § n = 7 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Class of work | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | 394 | −0.58 | −0.64 to −0.51 | −0.68 to −0.46 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Corporate Functional | 346 | −0.60 | −0.67 to −0.53 | −0.69 to −0.51 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | 153 | −0.41 | −0.53 to −0.26 | −0.56 to −0.23 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 223 | −0.54 | −0.63 to −0.44 | −0.68 to −0.38 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Active, Production | 88 | −0.53 | −0.66 to −0.36 | −0.69 to −0.31 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Canceled | 276 | −0.03 | −0.14 to 0.09 | −0.16 to 0.10 | 0.656 | 0.656 |
| Respondent role | | | | | | |
| Individual Contributor | 560 | −0.60 | −0.65 to −0.55 | −0.67 to −0.53 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Engagement Manager | 150 | −0.58 | −0.68 to −0.47 | −0.69 to −0.46 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Portfolio Director | 29 | −0.34 | † | † | 0.074 | 0.148 |
| Customer Management Executive | 1 | ‡ | | | | |
| Vendor type | | | | | | |
| IT services major | 279 | −0.57 | −0.64 to −0.48 | −0.68 to −0.44 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| BPO specialist | 171 | −0.54 | −0.63 to −0.42 | −0.67 to −0.37 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Consulting firm | 103 | −0.61 | −0.72 to −0.47 | −0.77 to −0.37 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Boutique or specialist provider | 73 | −0.76 | −0.84 to −0.64 | −0.87 to −0.54 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Pure-play agentic AI firm | 64 | −0.54 | −0.69 to −0.34 | −0.73 to −0.30 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Not reported, recovered by engagement | 50 | −0.55 | −0.72 to −0.31 | −0.73 to −0.31 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |

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

| Segment | Spearman rho | p | Share at 7 or above, distressed | Share at 7 or above, other | Engagements | Engagement level r | 95% CI | TOST p |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Study set | −0.58 | < 0.001 | 76.98% of 378 | 29.01% of 362 | 150 | −0.68 | −0.76 to −0.58 | 1.000 |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | | |
| CXM | −0.61 | < 0.001 | 66.67% of 96 | 23.36% of 107 | 42 | −0.70 | −0.83 to −0.50 | 1.000 |
| ITO | −0.47 | < 0.001 | 80.73% of 109 | 41.12% of 107 | 40 | −0.59 | −0.76 to −0.34 | 0.987 |
| BPO | −0.61 | < 0.001 | 78.89% of 90 | 26.44% of 87 | 37 | −0.70 | −0.84 to −0.49 | 1.000 |
| KPO | −0.63 | < 0.001 | 81.93% of 83 | 21.31% of 61 | 31 | −0.74 | −0.86 to −0.52 | 1.000 |
| Institution type | | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | −0.68 | < 0.001 | 91.38% of 58 | 38.89% of 54 | 24 | −0.86 | † | 1.000 |
| Wealth management and private banking | −0.53 | < 0.001 | 71.43% of 63 | 20.69% of 58 | 23 | −0.65 | † | 0.980 |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | −0.38 | < 0.001 | 80.77% of 52 | 41.67% of 36 | 19 | −0.36 | † | 0.597 |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | −0.78 | < 0.001 | 91.67% of 24 | 30.95% of 42 | 14 | −0.89 | † | 1.000 |
| Commercial and business banking | −0.54 | < 0.001 | 64.71% of 34 | 29.73% of 37 | 13 | −0.68 | † | 0.947 |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | −0.47 | < 0.001 | 65.79% of 38 | 33.33% of 27 | 13 | −0.61 | † | 0.897 |
| Credit card and payments issuing | −0.47 | < 0.001 | 63.16% of 38 | 37.04% of 27 | 12 | −0.61 | † | 0.885 |
| Retail and consumer banking | −0.63 | < 0.001 | 73.33% of 30 | 15.15% of 33 | 12 | −0.70 | † | 0.955 |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | −0.71 | < 0.001 | 84.62% of 26 | 10.34% of 29 | 11 | −0.80 | † | 0.986 |
| Private equity and private capital | −0.71 | < 0.001 | 93.33% of 15 | 31.58% of 19 | 9 | ‡ | ‡ | |
| Process family | | | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | −0.68 | < 0.001 | 84.76% of 105 | 24.53% of 106 | 47 | −0.74 | −0.85 to −0.58 | 1.000 |
| Technology engineering and operations | −0.56 | < 0.001 | 70.00% of 90 | 27.78% of 90 | 35 | −0.63 | −0.80 to −0.38 | 0.994 |
| Client servicing and communications | −0.55 | < 0.001 | 83.33% of 36 | 46.81% of 47 | 16 | −0.77 | † | 0.994 |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | −0.38 | 0.001 | 88.89% of 36 | 42.42% of 33 | 15 | −0.49 | † | 0.790 |
| Payments, cards and disputes | −0.62 | < 0.001 | 43.75% of 32 | 17.86% of 28 | 12 | −0.77 | † | 0.984 |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | −0.55 | < 0.001 | 63.64% of 22 | 22.22% of 27 | 9 | ‡ | ‡ | |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | −0.56 | < 0.001 | 92.59% of 27 | 25.00% of 20 | 9 | ‡ | ‡ | |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | −0.68 | < 0.001 | 80.00% of 30 | 18.18% of 11 | 7 | ‡ | ‡ | |
| Class of work | | | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | −0.54 | < 0.001 | 77.18% of 206 | 31.91% of 188 | 76 | −0.67 | −0.78 to −0.52 | 1.000 |
| Corporate Functional | −0.62 | < 0.001 | 76.74% of 172 | 25.86% of 174 | 74 | −0.70 | −0.80 to −0.56 | 1.000 |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | −0.40 | < 0.001 | 43.86% of 57 | 14.58% of 96 | 31 | −0.39 | −0.66 to −0.05 | 0.714 |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | −0.53 | < 0.001 | 51.72% of 87 | 12.50% of 136 | 43 | −0.58 | −0.75 to −0.34 | 0.988 |
| Active, Production | −0.53 | < 0.001 | 48.00% of 25 | 11.11% of 63 | 20 | −0.58 | † | 0.924 |
| Canceled | −0.03 | 0.661 | 100.00% of 209 | 100.00% of 67 | 56 | 0.12 | −0.15 to 0.37 | 0.085 |
| Respondent role | | | | | | | | |
| Individual Contributor | −0.59 | < 0.001 | 77.00% of 313 | 27.13% of 247 | 150 | −0.69 | −0.77 to −0.60 | 1.000 |
| Engagement Manager | −0.58 | < 0.001 | 78.69% of 61 | 30.34% of 89 | 150 | −0.58 | −0.68 to −0.47 | 1.000 |
| Portfolio Director | −0.30 | 0.108 | ‡ n = 3 | 42.31% of 26 | 29 | −0.34 | † | 0.583 |
| Customer Management Executive | ‡ n = 1 | | | | | | | |
| Vendor type | | | | | | | | |
| IT services major | −0.56 | < 0.001 | 77.94% of 136 | 30.07% of 143 | 59 | −0.65 | −0.78 to −0.48 | 1.000 |
| BPO specialist | −0.53 | < 0.001 | 72.28% of 101 | 35.71% of 70 | 37 | −0.66 | −0.81 to −0.43 | 0.998 |
| Consulting firm | −0.60 | < 0.001 | 79.17% of 48 | 21.82% of 55 | 23 | −0.68 | † | 0.989 |
| Boutique or specialist provider | −0.74 | < 0.001 | 86.11% of 36 | 27.03% of 37 | 17 | −0.86 | † | 1.000 |
| Pure-play agentic AI firm | −0.54 | < 0.001 | 76.92% of 26 | 23.68% of 38 | 14 | −0.65 | † | 0.940 |
| Not reported, recovered by engagement | −0.54 | < 0.001 | 74.19% of 31 | 31.58% of 19 | 41 | −0.56 | −0.74 to −0.30 | 0.975 |

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

The study set r was −0.59 (95% CI −0.63 to −0.54, Holm p < 0.001, n = 740 respondents). Of the 37 tested segment levels, 35 held after Holm control.

## Association of Written Sentiment with the Study Measures

Table 14. Written sentiment and the study measuresTable

| Comparison | With a negative response | Without a negative response | Test | Statistic | p |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Cancellation rate | 55 of 134 engagements (41.04%) | 1 of 16 engagements (6.25%) | Fisher exact | | 0.006 |
| Customer satisfaction, active engagements | Mean 61.86%, n = 79 engagements | Mean 75.87%, n = 15 engagements | Welch t | −5.93 | < 0.001 |
| Engagement mean written score and cancellation | | | Point-biserial r | r = −0.28, n = 142 engagements | < 0.001 |
| Respondent mean written score and intent to leave | | | Spearman rho | rho = −0.16, n = 353 respondents | 0.003 |

The cancellation and customer satisfaction contrasts compared engagements with a negative written response against all other engagements. The comparison group comprised 16 other engagements, of which 8 had no scored written response coded to the indicator and 8 had only scored responses that were not negative. Cancellation was recorded for 55 of the 134 engagements with a negative response (41.04%), against 1 of the 16 other engagements (6.25%). The difference reached significance at 0.05 (Fisher exact p = 0.006). Mean customer satisfaction was 61.86% on the 79 active engagements with a negative response, against 75.87% on the 15 other active engagements. The difference reached significance at 0.05 (Welch t −5.93, p < 0.001). The association of written sentiment itself with the study measures was tested by two correlations. The association of the engagement mean written score with cancellation reached significance at 0.05 (r = −0.28, p < 0.001, n = 142 engagements). The association of the respondent mean written score with intent to leave reached significance at 0.05 (rho = −0.16, p = 0.003, n = 353 respondents). All four outcome comparisons reached significance at 0.05. Both comparisons with cancellation were descriptive, because responses on canceled engagements were written after cancellation.

## Comparison of Associations Across the Four Measures

Table 15. Associations across the four measuresTable

| Measure | Form | Unit | n | r | 95% CI | p | Equivalent to zero | Rank among the four |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Cancellation rate | Descriptive contrast | Engagement | 150 | −0.60 | −0.69 to −0.48 | < 0.001 | No | 3 |
| Customer satisfaction | Clean estimate | Engagement | 94 | 0.74 | 0.63 to 0.82 | < 0.001 | No | 2 |
| Engagement indicator mean | Leave-one-out | Engagement | 150 | 0.84 | 0.78 to 0.88 | < 0.001 | No | 1 |
| Intent to leave | Respondent level, clustered | Respondent | 740 | −0.59 | −0.65 to −0.51 | < 0.001 | No | 4 |

Table 16. Pairwise comparison of associationsTable

| Pair compared | Difference in r | Steiger z | p | Holm p | Reading |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Cancellation rate and customer satisfaction | −0.14 | −6.48 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | Differ |
| Cancellation rate and engagement indicator mean | −0.24 | −6.37 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | Differ |
| Cancellation rate and intent to leave | −0.08 | −2.06 | 0.039 | 0.054 | Do not differ |
| Customer satisfaction and engagement indicator mean | −0.10 | −4.02 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | Differ |
| Customer satisfaction and intent to leave | 0.06 | 2.21 | 0.027 | 0.054 | Do not differ |
| Engagement indicator mean and intent to leave | 0.16 | 5.68 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 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, 4 differed after Holm control.

## Clustering and Effective Sample Size

Table 17. Clustering and effective sample sizeTable

| Statistic | Value | Reading |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Clusters (engagements) | 150 | Engagements with at least one answer. |
| Mean respondents per engagement | 5.3 | Answers per engagement with at least one answer. |
| ICC(1) | 0.58 | Share of variance between engagements. |
| Design effect | 3.48 | 1 plus (mean cluster size minus 1) times ICC. |
| Nominal respondent n | 789 | Respondents who answered. |
| Effective n | 227 | 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 789 respondent answers to about 227 independent answers. Respondent level intervals therefore used the cluster bootstrap, and respondent level tests on intent to leave used cluster-robust errors.

## Equivalence Tests of Null Results

Table 18. Equivalence tests of null resultsTable

| Measure | n | r | Equivalence bound | TOST p, lower | TOST p, upper | Equivalent to zero | Achieved power | MDE at power 0.80 | Detection floor for this n |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Cancellation rate | 150 | −0.60 | \|r\| < 0.30 | 1.000 | < 0.001 | No | 0.96 | 0.23 | 0.23 |
| Customer satisfaction | 94 | 0.74 | \|r\| < 0.30 | < 0.001 | 1.000 | No | 0.84 | 0.29 | 0.23 |
| Engagement indicator mean | 150 | 0.84 | \|r\| < 0.30 | < 0.001 | 1.000 | No | 0.96 | 0.23 | 0.23 |
| Intent to leave | 740, effective 212 | −0.59 | \|r\| < 0.30 | 1.000 | < 0.001 | No | 0.99 | 0.19 | 0.23 |

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

## Robustness Checks

Table 19. Robustness checksTable

| Check | Measure | Primary r | Check r | 95% CI | Change | Conclusion holds |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Rank correlation in place of Pearson | Cancellation rate | −0.60 | −0.63 | a | −0.04 | Yes |
| Rank correlation in place of Pearson | Customer satisfaction | 0.74 | 0.74 | a | 0.00 | Yes |
| Rank correlation in place of Pearson | Engagement indicator mean | 0.84 | 0.83 | a | −0.01 | Yes |
| Rank correlation in place of Pearson | Intent to leave | −0.59 | −0.58 | a | 0.01 | Yes |
| Non-answers excluded, then imputed at the engagement mean | Intent to leave | −0.59 | −0.59 | a | 0.00 | Yes |
| Active engagements only | Engagement indicator mean | 0.84 | 0.80 | 0.71 to 0.86 | −0.04 | Yes |
| Active engagements only | Intent to leave | −0.59 | −0.49 | −0.56 to −0.42 | 0.10 | Yes |
| Most influential engagement removed (largest Cook's distance) | Cancellation rate | −0.60 | −0.61 | −0.70 to −0.50 | −0.02 | Yes |
| Most influential engagement removed (largest Cook's distance) | Customer satisfaction | 0.74 | 0.74 | 0.63 to 0.82 | 0.00 | Yes |
| Most influential engagement removed (largest Cook's distance) | Engagement indicator mean | 0.84 | 0.84 | 0.79 to 0.88 | 0.01 | Yes |
| Most influential engagement removed (largest Cook's distance) | Intent to leave | −0.59 | −0.60 | −0.64 to −0.55 | −0.01 | Yes |
| Engagements weighted by respondent count | Cancellation rate | −0.60 | −0.60 | a | 0.00 | Yes |
| Engagements weighted by respondent count | Customer satisfaction | 0.74 | 0.74 | a | 0.00 | Yes |
| Engagements weighted by respondent count | Engagement indicator mean | 0.84 | 0.83 | a | 0.00 | Yes |
| Bootstrap of engagements | Cancellation rate | −0.60 | −0.60 | −0.68 to −0.51 | 0.00 | Yes |
| Bootstrap of engagements | Customer satisfaction | 0.74 | 0.74 | 0.65 to 0.82 | 0.00 | Yes |
| Bootstrap of engagements | Engagement indicator mean | 0.84 | 0.84 | 0.78 to 0.88 | 0.00 | Yes |
| Bootstrap of engagements | Intent to leave | −0.59 | −0.59 | −0.65 to −0.51 | 0.00 | Yes |
| Thin-base segments removed | Cancellation rate | −0.60 | −0.60 | −0.72 to −0.44 | 0.00 | Yes |
| Thin-base segments removed | Customer satisfaction | 0.74 | 0.78 | 0.65 to 0.87 | 0.04 | Yes |
| Thin-base segments removed | Engagement indicator mean | 0.84 | 0.84 | 0.77 to 0.90 | 0.01 | Yes |
| Thin-base segments removed | Intent to leave | −0.59 | −0.62 | −0.68 to −0.55 | −0.03 | Yes |

Note: a No interval for this check.

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

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

## Measure Independence and Part-Whole Correction

Each of the four measures was computed from data this indicator does not contain, so each result is a finding rather than an arithmetic consequence. This indicator is one of the 100 components, so the engagement indicator mean was recomputed without it, and the correction changed r by 0.00, from 0.84 to 0.84.

## Comparison with the Study Norm

Table 20. Comparison with the study normTable

| Measure | This indicator, oriented r | Study median, oriented r | Deviation | Fisher z | p | Holm p |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Cancellation rate | 0.60 | 0.60 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1.000 | 1.000 |
| Customer satisfaction | 0.73 | 0.72 | 0.01 | 0.37 | 0.712 | 1.000 |
| Engagement indicator mean | 0.84 | 0.84 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1.000 | 1.000 |
| Intent to leave | 0.68 | 0.71 | −0.03 | −0.81 | 0.418 | 1.000 |
| Spread of deviations | | | 0.05 | | | |
| Verdict | TYPICAL | | | | | |

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

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

## Comparison of Written Sentiment with Other Part 2 Indicators

Figure 6. Share of negative written responses, indicators of Part 2 with 30 or more scored responses (n = 71 indicators)ExhibitNote: Each column is one indicator, ordered from the highest share of negative responses. The indicator is shown in amber. The dashed line marks the median share across the 71 indicators, 80.82%. 

The peer set comprised 71 indicators of Part 2 with 30 or more scored responses. The indicator was within the peer set. Its share of negative responses ranked 19 of 71 from the highest. Its mean written score (−5.8, n = 498 responses) ranked 19 of 71 from the most negative. The peer median of the mean written score was −4.7 across the 71 indicators.

## Co-Occurring Indicators and Themes

Figure 7. Other indicators and themes coded in the same written responses (n = 498 responses)ExhibitNote: Gray bars are other indicators coded in the same responses. Amber bars are themes of the coding rulebook, which carry no score. Shares are of the 498 responses coded to the indicator. Every co-coded indicator and every theme at or above the fifth-highest count of its kind is shown, ties included. C205: “I have altered client processes.” C094: “Rate the quality of the customer's data across the systems this engagement depends on.” C100: “Rate how completely the customer's processes are mapped and documented to the depth agentic AI requires.” C199: “I have altered client-provided data.” C105: “Rate the effectiveness of the customer's management of its side of this engagement.” C108: “Rate the customer's ability to provision the system access and identities that AI agents require.” Emotional states coded in the same responses, as counts: resigned 24, frustrated 24, tired 19, calm or fine 16, stressed 4 and angry 1.

The responses coded to the indicator were most often also coded to “I have altered client processes” (C205, 229 responses). The second most frequent co-coded indicator was “Rate the quality of the customer's data across the systems this engagement depends on” (C094, 83 responses). The most frequent theme of the coding rulebook in the same responses was “Raised it, nothing came back” (121 responses).

## Interpretation of the Data

Distressed answers made up more than half of the study set (404 of 789 answers, 51.20%). Active, Production had the highest mean by lifecycle stage (mean 4.4, n = 96 respondents), and Canceled had the lowest (mean 2.4, n = 297 respondents). Portfolio Director respondents gave the highest ratings by role (mean 4.6, n = 29 respondents), and Individual Contributor respondents gave the lowest (mean 3.4, n = 609 respondents). The associations held under every robustness check run on this item (22 of 22 checks).

The written responses corroborated the rating at respondent level, with a weak positive correlation between written score and rating. Of the 229 responses also coded to C205, 220 were secondary responses to the indicator. Written responses were voluntary. They recorded what the respondents who wrote reported, and how common it was is measured by the ratings.

## 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 = 1). Answers clustered within engagements, which reduced the effective number of independent answers (ICC 0.58, 789 answers worth about 227 independent answers).

Shares of written sentiment were shares of responses, not of the study set of respondents. The written score took five fixed values, so its mean and median were coarse. Responses clustered within engagements. Intervals for written sentiment used a bootstrap by engagement. Coding was performed by AI coders under a fixed rulebook. Agreement on whether a response was coded to the indicator rested on 66 responses second-coded under rulebook 0.5, with the coders agreeing on 56 of 66. Agreement on the score rested on 56 responses second-scored under rulebook 0.5, with the scores agreeing in 54 of 56. These bases of second-coded responses are too small for an indicator-level alpha.

## Definitions

Table 21. DefinitionsTable

| Term | Definition |
| --- | --- |
| Response scale | Ratings run from 1 to 10. Where a high rating is the worse outcome, the analysis uses the goodness view, 11 minus the raw rating. |
| Distressed | A rating of 3 or below on the goodness view. At engagement level, an engagement mean of 3 or below. |
| Answering base | Respondents who gave a rating from 1 to 10. |
| Non-answers | “I do not know” and “I prefer to not answer” are counted separately and are excluded from the mean. |
| Indicator class | Respondent level: a value recorded for each respondent and computed across the respondents who answered. |
| Failure category | One of the five failure categories of the Study Taxonomy, section 3. |
| Engagement indicator mean | The mean of an engagement's 100 indicator ratings. The indicator is one of the 100, so the mean is recomputed without it. |
| Written response | A coded written answer about the respondent's own engagement. Non-answers and answers about another engagement are excluded. |
| Primary and secondary | Primary responses were written in answer to a written-answer question in the indicator's own survey section. Secondary responses were written in answer to a question outside that section and coded to the indicator because their content addressed it. |
| Written sentiment scale | Five fixed values of the coding rulebook: −10, −5, 0, +5, +10. The sign is the direction and the magnitude is the strength. |
| Coding | Responses were coded under rulebook 0.5. Scores were added under rulebook 0.6 to every mark and every quote, with the score rulings of rulebook section 21. AI coders worked under a fixed rulebook. A sample of records was second-coded. Score agreement across all indicators was Krippendorff's alpha 0.969 on the 0.5 scores and 0.930 on the scores added in 0.6. |

## Sources and Provenance

Table 22. Sources and provenanceTable

| Item | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Study data | Study Data.xlsx, Data sheet, column C109, sha256 219eba0457274d04 |
| Statistics engine | compute_statistics.py, sha256 738319eef764602b |
| Statistics record | Computed Statistics.json, record C109, 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 | 2,408 of 2,408 |
| 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 | C109.qa.json, sha256 ddf564998a525728. C109.wfacts.json, sha256 a8a4ab736cdc1f8f. Prose C109.json, sha256 cb5dbea58edb76be |


## Links to related study evidence

- [Part 2](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/part-2-five-failure-categories/)
- [Financial institution readiness](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/part-2-five-failure-categories/financial-institution-readiness/)
- [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 1](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/part-1-engagement-outcomes/)
- [C019](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-4-c019/)
- [C205](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-5-c205/)
- [C094](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-2-c094/)
- [C100](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-2-c100/)
- [C199](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-5-c199/)
- [C105](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-2-c105/)
- [C108](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-2-c108/)