Study Data · Part 1 · Indicator Deep-Dive Analysis

What type of company is your employer?

Indicator C076 · By Phil Hatch · Akholi · October 9, 2026

Indicator Specification

Table 1. Indicator specificationTable
FieldValue
Indicator codeC076
Question as askedWhat type of company is your employer?
Failure categoryNot one of the 100 rated indicators
Place in the surveyVendor Details > 4.1 Vendor Profile > Profile
Indicator classEngagement attribute
Indicator typeCategorical
Response scaleLevels: IT services major, BPO specialist, Consulting firm, Boutique or specialist provider, Pure-play agentic AI firm
Answering base793 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 57

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−0.0140.731
Customer satisfactionOmega squared85 engagements−0.0040.524
Engagement indicator meanOmega squared150 engagements−0.0060.573
Intent to leaveOmega squared150 engagements−0.0180.872

IT services major was the most common employer type among respondents (316 of 793 respondents, 39.85%), and Pure-play agentic AI firm was the least common (75 of 793 respondents, 9.46%). Cancellation was lowest for IT services major (32.20% canceled, n = 59 engagements) and highest for BPO specialist (45.95% canceled, n = 37 engagements), with no difference under test (chi-square 2.02, p 0.731, Cramer’s V 0.12, n = 150 engagements). Customer satisfaction on active engagements ranged from BPO specialist at the low end (mean 60.9, n = 20 engagements) to Boutique or specialist provider at the high end (mean 67.3, n = 10 engagements), with no difference under test (Welch F 0.76, p 0.524, omega squared −0.004, n = 85 engagements). The engagement indicator mean was lowest for BPO specialist (mean 3.7, n = 37 engagements) and highest for Consulting firm (mean 4.3, n = 23 engagements), with no difference under test (Welch F 0.74, p 0.573, omega squared −0.006, n = 150 engagements). Intent to leave was highest for BPO specialist (mean 7.1, n = 37 engagements), with no difference under test (Welch F 0.31, p 0.872, omega squared −0.018, n = 150 engagements). The answer mix differed after Holm control by outsourcing model (chi-square 101.14, Holm p < 0.001, Cramer’s V 0.47) and by process family (chi-square 39.59, Holm p 0.003, Cramer’s V 0.28).

Distribution of Responses

Table 3. Distribution of responses, respondent levelTable
AnswerRespondentsShare of answered (base 793)Cumulative shareEngagements with at least oneShare of 150 engagementsDistressed
IT services major31639.85%39.85%5939.33%Not applicable
BPO specialist19824.97%64.82%3724.67%Not applicable
Consulting firm11714.75%79.57%2315.33%Not applicable
Boutique or specialist provider8710.97%90.54%1711.33%Not applicable
Pure-play agentic AI firm759.46%100.00%149.33%Not applicable
Answered, total793100.00%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 rateEngagementsIT services major, shareBPO specialist, shareConsulting firm, shareBoutique or specialist provider, sharePure-play agentic AI firm, share
Study set85079393.29% of 85015039.85%24.97%14.75%10.97%9.46%
Outsourcing model
CXM23221492.24% of 2324228.50%42.99%0.00%23.83%4.67%
ITO24422993.85% of 2444070.74%0.00%12.66%5.24%11.35%
BPO20919693.78% of 2093725.51%44.39%0.00%12.24%17.86%
KPO16515493.33% of 1653127.92%12.34%57.14%0.00%2.60%
Institution type
Asset management13212997.73% of 1322429.46%35.66%11.63%15.50%7.75%
Wealth management and private banking14013294.29% of 1402359.09%9.09%8.33%4.55%18.94%
Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination)1059893.33% of 1051926.53%21.43%26.53%11.22%14.29%
Insurance (life, property and casualty, health)787292.31% of 781461.11%6.94%13.89%9.72%8.33%
Commercial and business banking827389.02% of 821319.18%54.79%13.70%8.22%4.11%
Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing)716692.96% of 711351.52%22.73%7.58%7.58%10.61%
Credit card and payments issuing736791.78% of 731250.75%32.84%16.42%0.00%0.00%
Retail and consumer banking736893.15% of 731241.18%16.18%16.18%17.65%8.82%
Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets)575392.98% of 571115.09%28.30%26.42%30.19%0.00%
Private equity and private capital393589.74% of 39934.29%31.43%11.43%11.43%11.43%
Process family
Corporate and back-office functions24823393.95% of 2484715.88%38.20%21.89%18.45%5.58%
Technology engineering and operations20419193.63% of 2043562.83%7.33%9.95%6.28%13.61%
Client servicing and communications948893.62% of 941665.91%11.36%0.00%22.73%0.00%
Trade, settlement and reconciliation807593.75% of 801525.33%33.33%13.33%6.67%21.33%
Payments, cards and disputes736893.15% of 731241.18%36.76%0.00%10.29%11.76%
Credit, underwriting and suitability575291.23% of 57932.69%13.46%30.77%0.00%23.08%
Regulatory, audit, tax and legal514792.16% of 51951.06%14.89%34.04%0.00%0.00%
Financial crime and client onboarding433990.70% of 43733.33%53.85%12.82%0.00%0.00%
Class of work
LOB Operational45142193.35% of 4517642.52%25.18%14.73%7.60%9.98%
Corporate Functional39937293.23% of 3997436.83%24.73%14.78%14.78%8.87%
Engagement status and lifecycle stage
Active, Build-Out17516393.14% of 1753140.49%22.09%14.72%12.88%9.82%
Active, Transition/Cut-Over25022891.20% of 2504334.65%24.56%14.91%11.84%14.04%
Active, Production1039996.12% of 1032065.66%14.14%15.15%5.05%0.00%
Canceled32230394.10% of 3225634.98%30.36%14.52%11.22%8.91%
Respondent role
Individual Contributor66761191.60% of 66715040.26%24.71%14.73%10.80%9.49%
Engagement Manager150150100.00% of 15015039.33%24.67%15.33%11.33%9.33%
Portfolio Director313096.77% of 313036.67%30.00%10.00%13.33%10.00%
Customer Management Executive222 of 2201100
Vendor type
IT services majorIdentity, the segment is this indicator
BPO specialistIdentity, the segment is this indicator
Consulting firmIdentity, the segment is this indicator
Boutique or specialist providerIdentity, the segment is this indicator
Pure-play agentic AI firmIdentity, the segment is this indicator
Not reported, recovered by engagementIdentity, the segment is this indicator

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 modelEngagement101.1412< 0.001< 0.0010.47Monte Carlo, simulatedNone
Institution typeEngagement34.51320.3541.0000.25Monte Carlo, simulateda
Process familyEngagement39.5916< 0.0010.0030.28Monte Carlo, simulatedb
Class of workEngagement1.8840.7571.0000.11chi-squareNone
Engagement status and lifecycle stageEngagement9.36120.6851.0000.14Monte Carlo, simulatedNone
Respondent roleRespondent1.1380.9981.0000.03Monte Carlo, simulatedc
Vendor typeIdentity, the segment is this indicator
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. Outsourcing model differed in the answer mix after Holm control (chi-square 101.14, Holm p < 0.001, Cramer’s V 0.47). Process family differed in the answer mix after Holm control (chi-square 39.59, Holm p 0.003, Cramer’s V 0.28). No difference held after Holm control for institution type, class of work, engagement status and lifecycle stage and respondent role.

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
IT services major591932.20%
BPO specialist371745.95%
Consulting firm23834.78%
Boutique or specialist provider17741.18%
Pure-play agentic AI firm14535.71%

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 set1502.0240.7311.0000.12chi-square
Outsourcing model
CXM400.7620.7591.0000.14Monte Carlo, simulated
ITOFewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements
BPO264.3510.0870.5240.41Fisher exact
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)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 functions270.4910.6961.0000.13Fisher exact
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 Operational631.3820.5551.0000.15Monte Carlo, simulated
Corporate Functional674.3430.2611.0000.25Monte Carlo, simulated
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 2.02, p 0.731, 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
IT services major4064.69.8
BPO specialist2060.913.9
Consulting firm1562.312.5
Boutique or specialist provider1067.310.5
Pure-play agentic AI firm9‡
Note: ‡ Base under 10. No statistic is reported.

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 set850.763, 27.70.5241.000−0.0040.000 to 0.085
Outsourcing model
CXMFewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements
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 Operational290.011, 16.70.9321.000−0.035†
Corporate FunctionalFewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements
Engagement status and lifecycle stage
Active, Build-OutFewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements
Active, Transition/Cut-Over253.291, 16.40.0880.2640.094†
Active, ProductionFewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements
Canceledno clean estimate, canceled engagements fall outside the active population
Note: ‡ Base under 10. No statistic is reported. † Base under 30. No interval is reported.

The measure in the study set did not differ across answer levels (Welch F 0.76, p 0.524, n = 85 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
IT services major594.11.4
BPO specialist373.71.4
Consulting firm234.31.7
Boutique or specialist provider174.01.7
Pure-play agentic AI firm144.21.5

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 set1500.744, 46.40.5731.000−0.0060.000 to 0.046
Outsourcing model
CXM400.082, 20.30.9191.000−0.0480.000 to 0.026
ITOFewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements
BPO265.991, 20.40.0240.1890.155†
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)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 functions270.161, 19.50.6911.000−0.032†
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 Operational631.512, 27.30.2401.0000.0220.000 to 0.148
Corporate Functional671.283, 25.20.3011.0000.0070.000 to 0.126
Engagement status and lifecycle stage
Active, Build-OutFewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements
Active, Transition/Cut-Over252.321, 16.30.1471.0000.058†
Active, ProductionFewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements
Canceled360.101, 32.70.7491.000−0.0250.000 to 0.085
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 0.74, p 0.573, 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
IT services major596.62.3
BPO specialist377.12.5
Consulting firm236.62.4
Boutique or specialist provider177.02.6
Pure-play agentic AI firm146.62.7

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 set1500.314, 46.70.8721.000−0.0180.000 to 0.017
Outsourcing model
CXM400.342, 21.20.7161.000−0.0350.000 to 0.091
ITOFewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements
BPO264.421, 18.90.0490.3940.118†
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)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 functions270.441, 20.90.5141.000−0.021†
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 Operational630.542, 28.60.5891.000−0.0160.000 to 0.077
Corporate Functional671.493, 25.80.2401.0000.0210.000 to 0.147
Engagement status and lifecycle stage
Active, Build-OutFewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements
Active, Transition/Cut-Over251.091, 21.60.3081.0000.000†
Active, ProductionFewer than two answer levels with at least 10 engagements
Canceled361.671, 26.50.2071.0000.0210.000 to 0.198
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 0.31, p 0.872, 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 flag150−0.0140.731Yes3
Customer satisfactionOmega squared85−0.0040.524Yes1
Engagement indicator meanOmega squared150−0.0060.573Yes2
Intent to leaveOmega squared150−0.0180.872Yes4

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 engagement5.3Answers per engagement with at least one answer.
ICC(1)1.00Share of variance between engagements.
Design effect5.291 plus (mean cluster size minus 1) times ICC.
Nominal respondent n793Every 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 793 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 rate150−0.014Omega squared < 0.0900.001Yes0.880.076
Customer satisfaction85−0.004Omega squared < 0.0900.042Yes0.650.119
Engagement indicator mean150−0.006Omega squared < 0.0900.004Yes0.880.076
Intent to leave150−0.018Omega squared < 0.090< 0.001Yes0.880.076

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 satisfaction0.5240.4352.73Yes
Kruskal-Wallis in place of Welch FEngagement indicator mean0.5730.5403.11Yes
Kruskal-Wallis in place of Welch FIntent to leave0.8720.7631.85Yes
Active engagements onlyEngagement indicator mean0.5730.4720.86Yes
Active engagements onlyIntent to leave0.8720.9200.16Yes
Respondent level, cluster-robust Wald F by engagementCancellation rate0.7310.8230.38Yes
Respondent level, cluster-robust Wald F by engagementCustomer satisfaction0.5240.5270.80Yes
Respondent level, cluster-robust Wald F by engagementEngagement indicator mean0.5730.5040.84Yes
Respondent level, cluster-robust Wald F by engagementIntent to leave0.8720.8590.33Yes

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

BPO specialist engagements sat at the less favorable end of every study measure, though no test separated them from the other employer types. Every robustness check run on this item held (9 of 9 checks). Employer type sorted engagements by outsourcing model and process family, and it showed no association with the four study measures.

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.

Customer satisfaction for Boutique or specialist provider engagements rested on a small base (mean 67.3, n = 10 engagements). Each engagement took its respondents’ plurality answer for the measure comparisons (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 C076, sha256 219eba0457274d04
Statistics enginecompute_statistics.py, sha256 738319eef764602b
Statistics recordComputed Statistics.json, record C076, sha256 e405f65a43e37a6e
ComputedOctober 8, 2026, 01:38 UTC
TemplateIndicator Statistical Analysis Template, version 1.1 of 2026-10-06
Figures placed by script763 of 763

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 →