How many months has your employer been serving this customer across all work, not just this engagement?

Respondents reported that their employer had served the financial institution for several years on average (mean 32.6, median 33.0, n = 354 respondents). The association with cancellation was equivalent to zero (TOST p < 0.001). Customer satisfaction on active engagements showed a positive association that fell short of the test (r = 0.20, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.39, p 0.055, n = 94 active engagements) and could not be shown equivalent to zero inside the bound. The association with the engagement indicator mean was equivalent to zero (TOST p < 0.001). The association with intent to leave was equivalent to zero (TOST p 0.002). Relationship length did not differ after Holm control by any segment family (Holm p 1.000 in every family).

The indicator had 5 written responses coded to it, from 5 of 850 respondents on 4 of 150 engagements. Negative responses numbered 1 of the 5 scored responses. The strongest negative score, −10, was carried by 1 of the 5 scored responses. Every response was a secondary response, written in answer to a question outside the indicator’s own survey section.

The study set mean was 32.6 on 354 answering respondents, with a median of 33.0.

All 5 responses were secondary responses. The secondary responses came from 5 respondents on 4 engagements, in answer to 2 questions outside the indicator’s own survey section (C030 with 4 responses and C029 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 your employer been serving this customer across all work, not just this engagement?” 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 employer as helping the engagement at its best.” A score of −10 marks a response that describes “[this attribute of the employer] as harming the engagement at its worst.”

The distribution was reported as counts only, because fewer than 10 responses carried a score. Of the 5 scored responses, 1 was negative, 1 carried the strongest negative score and 4 were positive.

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. No difference held after Holm control for outsourcing model, institution type, process family, class of work, engagement status and lifecycle stage, respondent role and vendor type.

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 0.05 (95% CI −0.11 to 0.21, 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 0.20 (95% CI 0.00 to 0.39, Holm p 0.819, n = 94 engagements). The association did not hold after Holm control. It was not equivalent to zero either, so the result was inconclusive. Of the 16 tested segment levels, 1 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 0.05 (95% CI −0.12 to 0.20, 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 −0.06 (95% CI −0.17 to 0.04, Holm p 1.000, n = 340 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, 2 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 354 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, engagement indicator mean and intent to leave. Inconclusive, neither different from zero nor equivalent to it: customer satisfaction. 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: “Active engagements only” 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 also coded to 6 other indicators, each in 1 response. The most frequent theme of the coding rulebook in the same responses was “Team or colleagues” (4 responses).

Relationship length was equivalent to zero in its association with cancellation (TOST p < 0.001), the engagement indicator mean (TOST p < 0.001) and intent to leave (TOST p 0.002). Its result on customer satisfaction stayed unresolved, short of the test (r = 0.20, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.39, p 0.055, n = 94 active engagements) and short of equivalence to zero.

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 5 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 = 1). 20 of 22 checks held. The active-engagements-only check 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 2 responses second-scored under rulebook 0.6, with the scores agreeing in 2 of 2. This base of second-coded responses is too small for an indicator-level alpha.