Reported return on the engagement: ROI %

Respondents reported a return on 17 of the 30 engagements in production. Among the engagements with a reported return, the return on the engagement had a mean close to its median (mean 24.7, n = 17 engagements, median 23.0). The rule printed in Analysis Results recorded all 10 canceled engagements in production at zero return. Active engagements in production (n = 20 engagements) had a mean return (mean 21.0), and 3 of them were recorded at zero. Among engagements with a reported return, higher returns came with higher customer satisfaction (r = 0.71, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.89, n = 17 engagements) and lower intent to leave (r = −0.71, 95% CI −0.89 to −0.34, n = 17 engagements). The association between return and the engagement indicator mean did not hold under test (r = 0.47, 95% CI −0.01 to 0.78, p 0.056, n = 17 engagements).

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

Active production engagements, the return.

Engagements that reported a return above zero, the return.

The return against the measures.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

The zeros in production came mostly from canceled engagements, 10 of 13. The positive association with customer satisfaction (t 3.91, df 15, p 0.001) and the negative association with intent to leave (t −3.85, df 15, p 0.002) both held under test.

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 associations rested on a small group of engagements with a reported return (n = 17 engagements). The test against the engagement indicator mean ran at low power (power at the observed effect 0.48).