The customer is happy with the performance of the engagement at this stage

Distressed ratings on whether the financial institution was satisfied with the engagement’s performance at this stage came from a minority of respondents (89 of 379 answers, 23.48%). Engagements whose respondents reported a more satisfied financial institution were canceled less often (r = −0.57, 95% CI −0.67 to −0.45, p < 0.001, n = 150 engagements). Higher ratings came with higher customer satisfaction on active engagements (r = 0.53, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.66, p < 0.001, n = 94 active engagements). Ratings rose with the engagement indicator mean (r = 0.74, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.80, p < 0.001, n = 150 engagements). Respondents reporting a more satisfied financial institution had lower intent to leave (r = −0.62, cluster bootstrap 95% CI −0.69 to −0.53, p < 0.001, n = 363 respondents). Ratings differed after Holm control by engagement status and lifecycle stage (Welch F 26.16, Holm p < 0.001, omega squared 0.315) and by respondent role (Welch F 6.47, Holm p 0.014, omega squared 0.020).

The indicator had 13 written responses coded to it, from 13 of 850 respondents on 12 of 150 engagements. Negative responses numbered 9 of the 13 scored responses (69.23%). The strongest negative score, −10, was carried by 2 of the 13 scored responses (15.38%). Secondary responses, written in answer to questions outside the indicator’s own survey section, numbered 12 of the 13 responses (92.31%). The rating of respondents who wrote was not compared with that of respondents who did not, because only 9 of the 13 respondents who wrote gave a rating, fewer than 10.

The study set mean was 5.0 on 379 answering respondents, with a median of 5.0. 89 answers, 23.48% of the 379, were at the distressed end. A distressed engagement mean was recorded in 29 of 150 engagements.

Of the 13 responses, 1 (7.69%) was primary and 12 (92.31%) were secondary. The secondary responses came from 12 respondents on 11 engagements, in answer to 6 questions outside the indicator’s own survey section (most often C030 with 3 responses, C135 with 3 responses, C114 with 2 responses and C156 with 2 responses). No respondent wrote both a primary and a secondary response.

Negative responses made up 8 of the 12 secondary responses (66.67%), against the single primary response. The difference did not reach significance at 0.05 (Fisher exact p = 1.000, n = 13 responses).

Of the 13 scored responses, 9 (69.23%) were negative, 2 (15.38%) carried the strongest negative score and 4 (30.77%) were positive. The responses had a mean written score of −2.3 (n = 13 responses on 12 engagements). The base of scored responses was under 30, so no interval was reported for the mean.

Respondents who rated the indicator 3 or below wrote 2 of the 7 negative responses with a rating. Too few responses carried a rating for a correlation (9 responses with a rating). Where a written score diverges from the same respondent’s rating, the rating is the measure of the indicator.

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.

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 26.16, Holm p < 0.001, tested on engagement means). In Descriptive Statistics by Segment, Active, Build-Out had the highest mean, 5.9 (n = 80 respondents), and Canceled the lowest, 3.7 (n = 143 respondents). Respondent role differed after Holm control (Welch F 6.47, Holm p 0.014, tested on respondents). In Descriptive Statistics by Segment, Portfolio Director had the highest mean, 6.0 (n = 31 respondents), and Individual Contributor the lowest, 4.8 (n = 196 respondents). No difference held after Holm control for outsourcing model, institution type, process family, class of work and vendor type.

Scored responses came from 3 engagements in the Active, Transition/Cut-Over group, 2 engagements in the Active, Production group and 7 engagements in the Canceled group. No scored response came from the Active, Build-Out 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 6.80, df 2, p = 0.033, n = 12 engagements). Fewer than two groups held 10 or more responses, so no group is named as the lowest or the highest. Groups under 10 responses are reported as counts only. Negative responses numbered 2 of 3 in the Active, Transition/Cut-Over group, 0 of 3 in the Active, Production group and 7 of 7 in the Canceled group.

Across respondent roles, no test was run, because fewer than two roles reached 30 scored responses. Roles under 10 responses are reported as counts only. Among individual contributors, negative responses numbered 2 of 4. Among engagement managers, negative responses numbered 6 of 7. Among portfolio directors, negative responses numbered 1 of 2.

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 −0.57 (95% CI −0.67 to −0.45, Holm p < 0.001, n = 150 engagements). Of the 20 tested segment levels, 11 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 0.53 (95% CI 0.36 to 0.66, Holm p < 0.001, n = 94 engagements). Of the 16 tested segment levels, 7 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 0.74 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.80, Holm p < 0.001, n = 150 engagements). Of the 24 tested segment levels, 24 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 −0.62 (95% CI −0.68 to −0.55, Holm p < 0.001, n = 363 respondents). Of the 37 tested segment levels, 33 held after Holm control.

The cancellation contrast compared engagements with a negative written response against all other engagements. The comparison group comprised 141 other engagements, of which 138 had no scored written response coded to the indicator and 3 had only scored responses that were not negative. The contrast therefore did not test written sentiment by itself. Cancellation was recorded for 7 of the 9 engagements with a negative response, against 49 of the 141 other engagements (34.75%). The difference reached significance at 0.05 (Fisher exact p = 0.014). The customer satisfaction contrast was not computed, because only 2 active engagements had a negative response, fewer than 10. 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 = −0.70, p = 0.011, n = 12 engagements). The association of the respondent mean written score with intent to leave reached significance at 0.05 (rho = −0.63, p = 0.020, n = 13 respondents). All three outcome comparisons reached significance at 0.05. Both comparisons with cancellation were descriptive, because responses on canceled engagements were written after cancellation. Every comparison rested on a thin base, because fewer than 30 engagements had a scored written response.

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 reduced the 379 respondent answers to about 207 independent answers. Respondent level intervals therefore used the cluster bootstrap, and respondent level tests on intent to leave used cluster-robust errors.

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.

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.

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 engagement indicator mean.

The peer set comprised 101 indicators of the four Parts with 30 or more scored responses. The indicator was outside the peer set, because it had fewer than 30 scored responses. It was added to the ranking only and did not enter the peer median. Its share of negative responses ranked 76 of 102 from the highest. Its mean written score (−2.3, n = 13 responses) ranked 83 of 102 from the most negative. The peer median of the mean written score was −4.6 across the 101 indicators.

The indicator’s twin, ENG:Customer Satisfaction %, records the same fact under the coding rulebook’s twin rule. The twin was coded in all 13 responses coded to the indicator. The twin is left out of the counts that follow. The responses coded to the indicator were most often also coded to “Rate the quality of the customer’s data across the systems this engagement depends on” (C094, 3 responses). The second-highest count was shared by 5 indicators at 2 responses each. The most frequent theme of the coding rulebook in the same responses was “Comparison to a prior engagement” (4 responses).

Distressed engagement means appeared on a minority of engagements (29 of 150 engagements). Portfolio Director respondents rated the financial institution as more satisfied (mean 6.0, n = 31 respondents) than Individual Contributor respondents did (mean 4.8, n = 196 respondents). Ratings were highest at Active, Build-Out (mean 5.9, n = 80 respondents) and lowest on canceled engagements (mean 3.7, n = 143 respondents).

Too few responses carried a rating for a correlation, so the written responses gave no verdict on the rating. All 3 responses also coded to C094 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. The analysis of the written responses rested on 13 responses, a thin base.

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). The item drew a reduced base of respondents (mean 5.0, median 5.0, n = 379 respondents), and clustering within engagements reduced it further (ICC 0.55, 379 answers worth about 207 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. With fewer than 30 scored responses, no interval is reported for written sentiment. 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. No response coded to the indicator was second-scored under rulebook 0.5, so agreement on the score could not be assessed.