Study Data · Part 1 · Indicator Deep-Dive Analysis

The four study measures by engagement indicator mean quintile: 150 engagements in five bands of 30

Indicator ANALYSIS:indicator_mean_quintiles · By Phil Hatch · Akholi · October 9, 2026

Indicator Specification

Table 1. Indicator specificationTable
FieldValue
Indicator codeNone, a derived analysis
Question as askedThe four study measures by engagement indicator mean quintile: 150 engagements in five bands of 30
Failure categoryNot one of the 100 rated indicators
Place in the surveyNot a survey item
Indicator classDerived from other indicators
Indicator typeDerived analysis
Response scaleNot applicable, a derived analysis
Answering baseAs stated in Analysis Results
Non-answersNot applicable

Summary of Findings

Every study measure moved in order across the five engagement indicator mean quintiles set by the rule printed in Analysis Results. Cancellation fell across the quintiles (rho −0.73, p < 0.001, n = 150 engagements), from the lowest quintile (93.33% of 30) to the top quintile (0.00% of 30). Customer satisfaction rose from the lowest quintile (13.0, n = 30 engagements) to the top quintile (75.8, n = 30 engagements), and the quintiles differed under test (F 84.65, p < 0.001). The engagement indicator mean rose from the lowest quintile (2.2, n = 30 engagements) to the top quintile (6.2, n = 30 engagements) by construction. Intent to leave fell from the lowest quintile (9.1, n = 30 engagements) to the top quintile (3.8, n = 30 engagements), and the quintiles differed under test (F 76.29, p < 0.001). The share of indicators rated distressed fell from the lowest quintile (82.66%, mean of 30 engagements) to the top quintile (4.91%, mean of 30 engagements).

Analysis Results

The figures in this section were computed for the study and placed by code from the statistics record.

Table 2. Analysis resultsTable
ItemValue
Unit of analysisEngagement
RuleRI-063: five bands of 30 by engagement indicator mean, ties broken by engagement id

The five quintiles.

Table 3. Analysis results: the five indicator quintilesTable
QuintilenEngagement indicator meanIndicator mean rangeCanceledCancellation rateCustomer satisfaction, meanIntent to leave, meanIndicators distressed, mean share
1302.21.2 to 2.52893.33% of 3013.09.182.66%, mean of 30 engagements
2303.02.5 to 3.41963.33% of 3024.38.563.77%, mean of 30 engagements
3303.83.4 to 4.4930.00% of 3043.07.042.89%, mean of 30 engagements
4304.94.4 to 5.500.00% of 3063.25.418.22%, mean of 30 engagements
5306.25.5 to 7.300.00% of 3075.83.84.91%, mean of 30 engagements

Tests across the quintiles, cancellation by quintile, chi-square test.

Table 4. Analysis results: tests across the indicator quintiles, cancellation by indicator quintile, chi-square testTable
ItemValue
Chi-square85.32
df4
p< 0.001
n150
Smallest expected count11.2

Tests across the quintiles, customer satisfaction by quintile, analysis of variance.

Table 5. Analysis results: tests across the indicator quintiles, customer satisfaction by indicator quintile, analysis of varianceTable
ItemValue
n150
Quintiles5
F84.65
df, between quintiles4
df, within quintiles145
p< 0.001
Omega squared0.690
Omega squared 90% CI0.627 to 0.741
Equivalence p1.000
Equivalent to zeroNo
Power at the observed effect1.00
Smallest detectable omega squared (MDE)0.076

Tests across the quintiles, intent to leave by quintile, analysis of variance.

Table 6. Analysis results: tests across the indicator quintiles, intent to leave by indicator quintile, analysis of varianceTable
ItemValue
n150
Quintiles5
F76.29
df, between quintiles4
df, within quintiles145
p< 0.001
Omega squared0.668
Omega squared 90% CI0.600 to 0.722
Equivalence p1.000
Equivalent to zeroNo
Power at the observed effect1.00
Smallest detectable omega squared (MDE)0.076

Tests across the quintiles, cancellation against quintile number, Spearman rank correlation.

Table 7. Analysis results: tests across the indicator quintiles, cancellation against indicator quintile number, Spearman rank correlationTable
ItemValue
Spearman rho−0.73
p< 0.001
n150

Tests across the quintiles, customer satisfaction against quintile number, Spearman rank correlation.

Table 8. Analysis results: tests across the indicator quintiles, customer satisfaction against indicator quintile number, Spearman rank correlationTable
ItemValue
Spearman rho0.84
p< 0.001
n150

Tests across the quintiles, engagement indicator mean against quintile number, Spearman rank correlation.

Table 9. Analysis results: tests across the indicator quintiles, engagement indicator mean against indicator quintile number, Spearman rank correlationTable
ItemValue
Spearman rho0.98
p< 0.001
n150

Tests across the quintiles, intent to leave against quintile number, Spearman rank correlation.

Table 10. Analysis results: tests across the indicator quintiles, intent to leave against indicator quintile number, Spearman rank correlationTable
ItemValue
Spearman rho−0.80
p< 0.001
n150

Distribution of Recorded Values

This block is a derived analysis. Its own results are in Analysis Results. The blocks of its input indicators carry the response distribution of each input.

Descriptive Statistics by Segment

This block is a derived analysis. Its own results are in Analysis Results. The blocks of its input indicators carry the segment breakdown of each input.

Tests of Difference Between Segments

This block is a derived analysis. Its own results are in Analysis Results. The blocks of its input indicators carry the tests across segments for each input.

Association with Cancellation Rate

This block is a derived analysis. Its own results are in Analysis Results. The blocks of its input indicators carry each input’s association with this measure.

Association with Customer Satisfaction

This block is a derived analysis. Its own results are in Analysis Results. The blocks of its input indicators carry each input’s association with this measure.

Association with the Engagement Indicator Mean

This block is a derived analysis. Its own results are in Analysis Results. The blocks of its input indicators carry each input’s association with this measure.

Association with Intent to Leave

This block is a derived analysis. Its own results are in Analysis Results. The blocks of its input indicators carry each input’s association with this measure.

Comparison of Associations Across the Four Measures

This block is a derived analysis. Its own results are in Analysis Results. The blocks of its input indicators carry each input’s comparison across the four measures.

Clustering and Effective Sample Size

This block is a derived analysis. Its own results are in Analysis Results. The blocks of its input indicators carry the clustering of each input.

Equivalence Tests of Null Results

This block is a derived analysis. Its own results are in Analysis Results. The blocks of its input indicators carry each input’s equivalence test.

Robustness Checks

This block is a derived analysis. Its own results are in Analysis Results. The blocks of its input indicators carry each input’s robustness checks.

Measure Independence and Part-Whole Correction

This block is a derived analysis. Its own results are in Analysis Results. The blocks of its input indicators carry each input’s identity check.

Comparison with the Study Norm

This block is a derived analysis. Its own results are in Analysis Results. The blocks of its input indicators carry each input’s profile.

Interpretation of the Data

Customer satisfaction separated the quintiles most widely (omega squared 0.690), and intent to leave separated them almost as widely (omega squared 0.668). Cancellation fell from the lowest quintile (93.33% of 30) to the middle quintile (30.00% of 30), and no engagement in the top two quintiles was canceled (0.00% of 30 in each).

Limitations

The evidence is reported experience: what the delivery team said about its own engagement, gathered in one cross-section. The figures showed associations, not causes. Indicators about the financial institution were reported at second hand by vendor staff. Cancellation is a descriptive contrast, because canceled engagements were rated after they ended.

The ordering of the engagement indicator mean across the quintiles followed from the quintile rule itself (rho 0.98, p < 0.001).

Definitions

Table 11. DefinitionsTable
TermDefinition
Indicator classDerived from other indicators: computed by the study from other recorded fields, as Analysis Results sets out.
Failure categoryOne 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.
DirectionEach result is read in the direction of the measure it reports.
Engagement indicator meanThe mean of an engagement’s 100 indicator ratings.

Sources and Provenance

Table 12. Sources and provenanceTable
ItemValue
Study dataStudy Data.xlsx, sha256 219eba0457274d04
Statistics enginecompute_statistics.py, sha256 738319eef764602b
Statistics recordComputed Statistics.json, record ANALYSIS:indicator_mean_quintiles, sha256 e405f65a43e37a6e
ComputedOctober 8, 2026, 01:38 UTC
TemplateIndicator Statistical Analysis Template, version 1.1 of 2026-10-06
Figures placed by script121 of 121

Continue the report

Executive summary →
Overview

Executive Summary

Four findings from 150 engagements

Read →
Introduction

Introduction

Scope, evidence, and how the report is organized

Read →
Part 1

Engagement Outcomes

Poor results on every measure, and what separates them

Read →
Part 2

The Five Failure Categories

Where failure concentrates, category by category

Read →
Part 3

Governance, Oversight, and Control

Controls that existed in name only

Read →
Part 4

The Delivery Workforce

Early in their careers, dissatisfied, and many intending to leave

Read →
Part 5

Manual Alteration

How the delivery team altered the work to sustain it

Read →
Part 6

Executive Action Plan

Seven immediate actions and a first-year plan

Read →
Appendices

Appendices

Definitions, indicator inventory, method, and disclosures

Read →
Data

Study Data

Deep-dive analyses of the study indicators, published in stages

Read →