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

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

The indicator had 3 written responses coded to it, from 3 of 850 respondents on 3 of 150 engagements. All 3 scored responses were negative. No response carried the strongest negative score, −10. Every response was a secondary response, written in answer to a question outside the indicator’s own survey section.

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

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

The indicator has no good or bad end. Under the coding rulebook’s rule for such indicators, the written score records the effect each response states on the engagement or on the respondent. The survey question is “How many months has the engagement been in its current stage?” The frequency, scope and consequence a response states set the strength of its score. A score of +10 marks a response that describes “this attribute of the engagement as helping the engagement at its best.” A score of −10 marks a response that describes “this attribute as harming the engagement at its worst . . . .”

The distribution was reported as counts only, because fewer than 10 responses carried a score. Of the 3 scored responses, all were negative and none carried the strongest negative score.

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

Engagement families were tested on engagement means, and respondent role and vendor type were tested on respondents. A distressed p marked exact is a Fisher exact test for a two by two table, and one marked simulated is a Monte Carlo test run until its p is stable to the third decimal, both used where an expected count is under 5. Class of work differed after Holm control (Welch F 7.01, Holm p 0.046, tested on engagement means). In Descriptive Statistics by Segment, LOB Operational had the highest mean, 3.7 (n = 414 respondents), and Corporate Functional the lowest, 2.5 (n = 380 respondents). Engagement status and lifecycle stage differed after Holm control (Welch F 22.61, Holm p < 0.001, tested on engagement means). In Descriptive Statistics by Segment, Active, Production had the highest mean, 6.5 (n = 98 respondents), and Active, Build-Out the lowest, 1.7 (n = 167 respondents). Vendor type differed after Holm control (Welch F 4.38, Holm p 0.005, tested on respondents). In Descriptive Statistics by Segment, Consulting firm had the highest mean, 3.7 (n = 109 respondents), and BPO specialist the lowest, 2.6 (n = 185 respondents). No difference held after Holm control for outsourcing model, institution type, process family and respondent role.

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 study set r was −0.10 (95% CI −0.25 to 0.06, Holm p 1.000, n = 150 engagements). The association did not hold after Holm control. Equivalence Tests of Null Results found it equivalent to zero inside the bound. Of the 20 tested segment levels, 0 held after Holm control.

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 study set r was 0.07 (95% CI −0.13 to 0.27, Holm p 1.000, n = 94 engagements). The association did not hold after Holm control. Equivalence Tests of Null Results found it equivalent to zero inside the bound. Of the 16 tested segment levels, 0 held after Holm control.

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 study set r was 0.15 (95% CI −0.01 to 0.30, Holm p 1.000, n = 150 engagements). The association did not hold after Holm control. Equivalence Tests of Null Results found it equivalent to zero inside the bound. Of the 24 tested segment levels, 0 held after Holm control.

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

Pairs were compared on the engagement level form of every measure, each turned so that a higher value was the better outcome, on the 150 engagements where the indicator and all four measures existed. Of the 6 pairs, 0 differed after Holm control.

Clustering reduced the 794 respondent answers to about 150 independent answers. Respondent level intervals therefore used the cluster bootstrap, and respondent level tests on intent to leave used cluster-robust errors.

Tested null, equivalent to zero: cancellation rate, customer satisfaction, engagement indicator mean and intent to leave. No result was inconclusive. The detection floor column is the study floor at 150 engagements. Intent to leave was tested on its effective n.

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

Checks that did not hold: “Rank correlation in place of Pearson” on intent to leave and “Most influential engagement removed (largest Cook’s distance)” on customer satisfaction. A check holds when its test lands on the same side of 0.05 as the primary test and, where the primary test is below 0.05, its r keeps the primary sign. Thin-base rule: engagements in any level under 30 engagements of outsourcing model or process family removed. Institution type is not used, because every one of its levels is under 30.

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.

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

The comparison ran on 150 engagements. The indicator departed from the study’s typical pattern on cancellation rate, customer satisfaction, engagement indicator mean and intent to leave.

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

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

The indicator is a survey question that is not a rating, so the written responses were not set against a rating. Written responses were voluntary. They recorded what the respondents who wrote reported, and how common it was is measured by the answers. The analysis of the written responses rested on 3 responses, a base of anecdote strength.

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

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

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

Fewer than 10 responses carried a score, so written sentiment was reported as counts, with no statistic. Coding was performed by AI coders under a fixed rulebook. No response coded to the indicator fell in the sample second-coded under rulebook 0.5, so agreement on whether a response was coded to the indicator could not be assessed. Agreement on the score rested on 1 response second-scored under rulebook 0.6, with the scores agreeing in 1 of 1. This base of second-coded responses is too small for an indicator-level alpha.