Study Data · Part 1 · Indicator Deep-Dive Analysis

Is the outsourcing engagement Corporate Functional, or Line of Business Operational?

Indicator C033 · By Phil Hatch · Akholi · October 9, 2026

Indicator Specification

Table 1. Indicator specificationTable
FieldValue
Indicator codeC033
Question as askedIs the outsourcing engagement Corporate Functional, or Line of Business Operational?
Failure categoryNot one of the 100 rated indicators
Place in the surveyEngagement Details > 2.1 Engagement Identification > T1_FI Routing Chain
Indicator classEngagement attribute
Indicator typeCategorical
Response scaleLevels: LOB Operational, Corporate Functional
Answering base849 of 850 respondents gave one of the listed answers, across 150 of 150 engagements. None answered I do not know or I prefer to not answer
Non-answersI do not know 0, I prefer to not answer 0, blank 1
Engagements sheet twinCorporate Functional or LOB Operational

Summary of Findings

Table 2. Key results: association of the indicator with the four study measuresTable
MeasureEffect sizenValuep
Cancellation rateOmega squared, 0 or 1 flag150 engagements−0.0050.583
Customer satisfactionOmega squared94 engagements−0.0100.828
Engagement indicator meanOmega squared150 engagements−0.0060.795
Intent to leaveOmega squared150 engagements−0.0060.678

Respondents split close to evenly between LOB Operational (450 of 849 respondents, 53.00%) and Corporate Functional engagements (399 of 849 respondents, 47.00%). Cancellation did not differ between the two classes of work (chi-square 0.30, p 0.583, Cramer’s V 0.04, n = 150 engagements). Customer satisfaction on active engagements did not differ between them (Welch F 0.05, p 0.828, omega squared −0.010, n = 94 engagements). The engagement indicator mean did not differ between them (Welch F 0.07, p 0.795, omega squared −0.006, n = 150 engagements). Intent to leave did not differ between them (Welch F 0.17, p 0.678, omega squared −0.006, n = 150 engagements). The answer mix differed after Holm control by process family (chi-square 62.13, Holm p < 0.001, Cramer’s V 0.71).

Distribution of Responses

Table 3. Distribution of responses, respondent levelTable
AnswerRespondentsShare of answered (base 849)Cumulative shareEngagements with at least oneShare of 150 engagementsDistressed
LOB Operational45053.00%53.00%7650.67%Not applicable
Corporate Functional39947.00%100.00%7449.33%Not applicable
Answered, total849100.00%150100.00%

A categorical answer has no engagement mean. Each engagement took its respondents’ plurality answer, and tied engagements were left out. An answer was assigned to 150 of 150 engagements.

Distressed is not applicable, because the answer has no good or bad end on a scale.

Descriptive Statistics by Segment

Table 4. Descriptive statistics by segmentTable
SegmentBaseAnsweredAnswer rateEngagementsLOB Operational, shareCorporate Functional, share
Study set85084999.88% of 85015053.00%47.00%
Outsourcing model
CXM232232100.00% of 2324246.98%53.02%
ITO24424399.59% of 2444039.51%60.49%
BPO209209100.00% of 2093767.94%32.06%
KPO165165100.00% of 1653162.42%37.58%
Institution type
Asset management132132100.00% of 1322453.79%46.21%
Wealth management and private banking140140100.00% of 1402355.00%45.00%
Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination)105105100.00% of 1051940.00%60.00%
Insurance (life, property and casualty, health)7878100.00% of 781461.54%38.46%
Commercial and business banking8282100.00% of 821359.76%40.24%
Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing)7171100.00% of 711357.75%42.25%
Credit card and payments issuing7373100.00% of 731249.32%50.68%
Retail and consumer banking7373100.00% of 731252.05%47.95%
Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets)5757100.00% of 571147.37%52.63%
Private equity and private capital393897.44% of 39955.26%44.74%
Process family
Corporate and back-office functions248248100.00% of 2484719.35%80.65%
Technology engineering and operations20420399.51% of 2043520.20%79.80%
Client servicing and communications9494100.00% of 941693.62%6.38%
Trade, settlement and reconciliation8080100.00% of 801588.75%11.25%
Payments, cards and disputes7373100.00% of 7312100.00%0.00%
Credit, underwriting and suitability5757100.00% of 579100.00%0.00%
Regulatory, audit, tax and legal5151100.00% of 51956.86%43.14%
Financial crime and client onboarding4343100.00% of 437100.00%0.00%
Class of work
LOB OperationalIdentity, the segment is this indicator
Corporate FunctionalIdentity, the segment is this indicator
Engagement status and lifecycle stage
Active, Build-Out175175100.00% of 1753137.14%62.86%
Active, Transition/Cut-Over25024999.60% of 2504357.43%42.57%
Active, Production103103100.00% of 1032062.14%37.86%
Canceled322322100.00% of 3225655.28%44.72%
Respondent role
Individual Contributor66766699.85% of 66715053.45%46.55%
Engagement Manager150150100.00% of 15015050.67%49.33%
Portfolio Director3131100.00% of 313151.61%48.39%
Customer Management Executive222 of 2220
Vendor type
IT services major31631599.68% of 3165956.51%43.49%
BPO specialist198198100.00% of 1983753.54%46.46%
Consulting firm117117100.00% of 1172352.99%47.01%
Boutique or specialist provider8787100.00% of 871736.78%63.22%
Pure-play agentic AI firm7575100.00% of 751456.00%44.00%
Not reported, recovered by engagement5757100.00% of 574752.63%47.37%

Shares are of the answered respondents in each row, which is the base beside them. A row under 10 prints counts in place of shares.

Tests of Difference Between Segments

Table 5. Tests of difference between segmentsTable
Segment familyUnitChi-squaredfpHolm pCramer’s VTest for pLevels left out
Outsourcing modelEngagement6.9330.0740.2960.21chi-squareNone
Institution typeEngagement1.0480.9981.0000.09chi-squarea
Process familyEngagement62.134< 0.001< 0.0010.71chi-squareb
Class of workIdentity, the segment is this indicator
Engagement status and lifecycle stageEngagement3.8830.2740.8230.16chi-squareNone
Respondent roleRespondent0.4020.8181.0000.02chi-squarec
Vendor typeRespondent11.0450.0510.2530.11chi-squareNone
Note: a Private equity and private capital, n = 9. b Credit, underwriting and suitability, n = 9, Regulatory, audit, tax and legal, n = 9, Financial crime and client onboarding, n = 7. c Customer Management Executive, n = 2.

Engagement families were tested on engagement answers, and respondent role and vendor type were tested on respondents. Process family differed in the answer mix after Holm control (chi-square 62.13, Holm p < 0.001, Cramer’s V 0.71). No difference held after Holm control for outsourcing model, institution type, engagement status and lifecycle stage, respondent role and vendor type.

Association with Cancellation Rate

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

The measure by the engagement’s assigned answer.

Table 6. Association with cancellation rate by answer levelTable
Answer levelEngagementsCanceledCancellation rate
LOB Operational763039.47%
Corporate Functional742635.14%

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

Table 7. Association with cancellation rate, tests across answer levels by segmentTable
SegmentEngagementsChi-squaredfpHolm pCramer’s VTest for p
Study set1500.3010.5831.0000.04chi-square
Outsourcing model
CXM420.2610.6111.0000.08chi-square
ITO402.5710.1090.7640.25chi-square
BPO370.0011.0001.0000.01Fisher exact
KPO310.0010.9811.0000.00chi-square
Institution type
Asset management240.1710.6821.0000.08chi-square
Wealth management and private banking232.5610.1931.0000.33Fisher exact
Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination)Fewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements
Insurance (life, property and casualty, health)Fewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements
Commercial and business bankingFewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements
Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing)Fewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements
Credit card and payments issuingFewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements
Retail and consumer bankingFewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements
Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets)Fewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements
Private equity and private capital9‡
Process family
Corporate and back-office functionsFewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements
Technology engineering and operationsFewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements
Client servicing and communicationsFewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements
Trade, settlement and reconciliationFewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements
Payments, cards and disputesFewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements
Credit, underwriting and suitability9‡
Regulatory, audit, tax and legal9‡
Financial crime and client onboarding7‡
Class of work
LOB OperationalIdentity, the segment is this indicator
Corporate FunctionalIdentity, the segment is this indicator
Engagement status and lifecycle stage
Active, Build-OutNot computable, no variation in cancellation
Active, Transition/Cut-OverNot computable, no variation in cancellation
Active, ProductionNot computable, no variation in cancellation
CanceledNot computable, no variation in cancellation
Note: ‡ Base under 10. No statistic is reported.

Cancellation in the study set did not differ across answer levels (chi-square 0.30, p 0.583, n = 150 engagements).

Association with Customer Satisfaction

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

The measure by the engagement’s assigned answer.

Table 8. Association with customer satisfaction by answer levelTable
Answer levelEngagementsMean of the measureSD
LOB Operational4663.813.0
Corporate Functional4864.410.3

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

Table 9. Association with customer satisfaction, tests across answer levels by segmentTable
SegmentEngagementsWelch FdfpHolm pOmega squared90% CI
Study set940.051, 85.60.8281.000−0.0100.000 to 0.026
Outsourcing model
CXM272.651, 22.80.1170.4700.059†
ITOFewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements
BPOFewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements
KPOFewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements
Institution type
Asset managementFewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements
Wealth management and private bankingFewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements
Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination)Fewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements
Insurance (life, property and casualty, health)9‡
Commercial and business banking9‡
Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing)Fewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements
Credit card and payments issuing7‡
Retail and consumer banking8‡
Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets)8‡
Private equity and private capital7‡
Process family
Corporate and back-office functionsFewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements
Technology engineering and operationsFewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements
Client servicing and communications7‡
Trade, settlement and reconciliation7‡
Payments, cards and disputesFewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements
Credit, underwriting and suitability8‡
Regulatory, audit, tax and legal5‡
Financial crime and client onboarding4‡
Class of work
LOB OperationalIdentity, the segment is this indicator
Corporate FunctionalIdentity, the segment is this indicator
Engagement status and lifecycle stage
Active, Build-Out310.031, 23.80.8711.000−0.0320.000 to 0.055
Active, Transition/Cut-Over430.071, 39.10.7871.000−0.0220.000 to 0.064
Active, ProductionFewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements
Canceledno 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 measure in the study set did not differ across answer levels (Welch F 0.05, p 0.828, n = 94 engagements). The clean estimate ran inside active engagements only.

Association with the Engagement Indicator Mean

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

The measure by the engagement’s assigned answer.

Table 10. Association with the engagement indicator mean by answer levelTable
Answer levelEngagementsMean of the measureSD
LOB Operational764.01.5
Corporate Functional744.01.5

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

Table 11. Association with the engagement indicator mean, tests across answer levels by segmentTable
SegmentEngagementsWelch FdfpHolm pOmega squared90% CI
Study set1500.071, 148.00.7951.000−0.0060.000 to 0.019
Outsourcing model
CXM420.801, 34.40.3781.000−0.0040.000 to 0.135
ITO401.011, 31.20.3221.0000.0000.000 to 0.148
BPO370.031, 25.20.8601.000−0.0270.000 to 0.053
KPO310.121, 22.40.7351.000−0.0290.000 to 0.103
Institution type
Asset management240.031, 21.40.8681.000−0.042†
Wealth management and private banking232.521, 21.00.1271.0000.061†
Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination)Fewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements
Insurance (life, property and casualty, health)Fewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements
Commercial and business bankingFewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements
Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing)Fewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements
Credit card and payments issuingFewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements
Retail and consumer bankingFewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements
Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets)Fewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements
Private equity and private capital9‡
Process family
Corporate and back-office functionsFewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements
Technology engineering and operationsFewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements
Client servicing and communicationsFewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements
Trade, settlement and reconciliationFewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements
Payments, cards and disputesFewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements
Credit, underwriting and suitability9‡
Regulatory, audit, tax and legal9‡
Financial crime and client onboarding7‡
Class of work
LOB OperationalIdentity, the segment is this indicator
Corporate FunctionalIdentity, the segment is this indicator
Engagement status and lifecycle stage
Active, Build-Out310.161, 23.60.6941.000−0.0280.000 to 0.107
Active, Transition/Cut-Over430.231, 39.00.6371.000−0.0190.000 to 0.089
Active, ProductionFewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements
Canceled561.001, 50.00.3221.0000.0000.000 to 0.112
Note: † Base under 30. No interval is reported. ‡ Base under 10. No statistic is reported.

The measure in the study set did not differ across answer levels (Welch F 0.07, p 0.795, n = 150 engagements).

Association with Intent to Leave

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

The measure by the engagement’s assigned answer.

Table 12. Association with intent to leave by answer levelTable
Answer levelEngagementsMean of the measureSD
LOB Operational766.92.4
Corporate Functional746.72.4

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

Table 13. Association with intent to leave, tests across answer levels by segmentTable
SegmentEngagementsWelch FdfpHolm pOmega squared90% CI
Study set1500.171, 148.00.6781.000−0.0060.000 to 0.026
Outsourcing model
CXM420.871, 38.40.3571.000−0.0030.000 to 0.137
ITO407.691, 34.40.0090.0890.1290.020 to 0.320
BPO370.571, 25.50.4551.000−0.0120.000 to 0.133
KPO310.441, 23.10.5121.000−0.0170.000 to 0.148
Institution type
Asset management240.001, 22.00.9571.000−0.043†
Wealth management and private banking231.531, 21.00.2301.0000.022†
Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination)Fewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements
Insurance (life, property and casualty, health)Fewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements
Commercial and business bankingFewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements
Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing)Fewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements
Credit card and payments issuingFewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements
Retail and consumer bankingFewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements
Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets)Fewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements
Private equity and private capital9‡
Process family
Corporate and back-office functionsFewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements
Technology engineering and operationsFewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements
Client servicing and communicationsFewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements
Trade, settlement and reconciliationFewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements
Payments, cards and disputesFewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements
Credit, underwriting and suitability9‡
Regulatory, audit, tax and legal9‡
Financial crime and client onboarding7‡
Class of work
LOB OperationalIdentity, the segment is this indicator
Corporate FunctionalIdentity, the segment is this indicator
Engagement status and lifecycle stage
Active, Build-Out310.011, 26.90.9421.000−0.0330.000 to 0.004
Active, Transition/Cut-Over430.161, 41.00.6961.000−0.0200.000 to 0.081
Active, ProductionFewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements
Canceled560.521, 53.60.4751.000−0.0090.000 to 0.090
Note: † Base under 30. No interval is reported. ‡ Base under 10. No statistic is reported.

The measure in the study set did not differ across answer levels (Welch F 0.17, p 0.678, n = 150 engagements).

Comparison of Associations Across the Four Measures

Table 14. Associations across the four measuresTable
MeasureEffect sizenValuepEquivalent to zeroRank among the four
Cancellation rateOmega squared, 0 or 1 flag150−0.0050.583Yes1
Customer satisfactionOmega squared94−0.0100.828Yes4
Engagement indicator meanOmega squared150−0.0060.795Yes3
Intent to leaveOmega squared150−0.0060.678Yes2

Steiger’s z compares two correlations, and a categorical answer yields an effect size across levels rather than a correlation, so the pairs are not tested.

Clustering and Effective Sample Size

Table 15. Clustering and effective sample sizeTable
StatisticValueReading
Clusters (engagements)150Engagements with at least one answer.
Mean respondents per engagement5.7Answers per engagement with at least one answer.
ICC(1)1.00Share of variance between engagements.
Design effect5.661 plus (mean cluster size minus 1) times ICC.
Nominal respondent n849Every answer, with I do not know and I prefer to not answer counted as levels, as the plurality rule counts them.
Effective n150Nominal n divided by the design effect.
Cluster bootstrap appliedYesApplied to every respondent level CI where the ICC is 0.05 or above.

Clustering reduced the 849 respondent answers to about 150 independent answers. Respondent level intervals therefore used the cluster bootstrap, and respondent level tests on intent to leave used cluster-robust errors.

Equivalence Tests of Null Results

Table 16. Equivalence tests of null resultsTable
MeasurenOmega squaredEquivalence boundEquivalence pEquivalent to zeroAchieved powerMDE at power 0.80
Cancellation rate150−0.005Omega squared < 0.090< 0.001Yes0.970.050
Customer satisfaction94−0.010Omega squared < 0.0900.002Yes0.850.079
Engagement indicator mean150−0.006Omega squared < 0.090< 0.001Yes0.970.050
Intent to leave150−0.006Omega squared < 0.090< 0.001Yes0.970.050

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

Robustness Checks

Table 17. Robustness checksTable
CheckMeasurePrimary pCheck pCheck statisticConclusion holds
Kruskal-Wallis in place of Welch FCustomer satisfaction0.8280.8290.05Yes
Kruskal-Wallis in place of Welch FEngagement indicator mean0.7950.6930.16Yes
Kruskal-Wallis in place of Welch FIntent to leave0.6780.9160.01Yes
Active engagements onlyEngagement indicator mean0.7950.8480.04Yes
Active engagements onlyIntent to leave0.6780.9360.01Yes
Respondent level, cluster-robust Wald F by engagementCancellation rate0.5830.6710.18Yes
Respondent level, cluster-robust Wald F by engagementCustomer satisfaction0.8280.6490.21Yes
Respondent level, cluster-robust Wald F by engagementEngagement indicator mean0.7950.8480.04Yes
Respondent level, cluster-robust Wald F by engagementIntent to leave0.6780.7210.13Yes

Every check held. A check holds when its test lands on the same side of 0.05 as the primary test.

Measure Independence and Part-Whole Correction

Each of the four measures was computed from data this indicator does not contain, so each result is a finding rather than an arithmetic consequence.

Comparison with the Study Norm

Not applicable. A categorical item has no signed correlation, so it has no profile. Its per-level means carry the comparison.

Interpretation of the Data

LOB Operational engagements were canceled at a share (39.47% canceled, n = 76 engagements) close to Corporate Functional engagements (35.14% canceled, n = 74 engagements). Engagement indicator means were level across LOB Operational (mean 4.0, n = 76 engagements) and Corporate Functional engagements (mean 4.0, n = 74 engagements). Class of work showed no association with the four study measures and differed by process family only (chi-square 62.13, Holm p < 0.001, Cramer’s V 0.71).

Limitations

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

Tests across respondent role and vendor type were run at respondent level and treated respondents as independent. The section Clustering and Effective Sample Size states whether, and by how much, clustering within engagements reduced the information in respondent level figures.

Each engagement took its class of work from the plurality answer of its respondents (150 of 150 engagements).

Definitions

Table 18. DefinitionsTable
TermDefinition
Response scaleAs recorded, shown in Table 1. The indicator is not a rating, so no distressed range is defined.
Answering baseRespondents who gave one of the listed answers.
Non-answers“I do not know” and “I prefer to not answer” are counted separately and are excluded from the answering base and the shares.
Indicator classEngagement attribute: a property of the engagement rather than of the respondent.
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.
Engagement indicator meanThe mean of an engagement’s 100 indicator ratings.

Sources and Provenance

Table 19. Sources and provenanceTable
ItemValue
Study dataStudy Data.xlsx, Data sheet, column C033, sha256 219eba0457274d04
Statistics enginecompute_statistics.py, sha256 738319eef764602b
Statistics recordComputed Statistics.json, record C033, sha256 e405f65a43e37a6e
ComputedOctober 8, 2026, 01:38 UTC
TemplateIndicator Statistical Analysis Template, version 1.1 of 2026-10-06
Figures placed by script669 of 669

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 →