Study Data · Part 1 · Indicator Deep-Dive Analysis

Corporate Functional or LOB Operational

Indicator ENG:Corporate Functional or LOB Operational · By Phil Hatch · Akholi · October 9, 2026

Indicator Specification

Table 1. Indicator specificationTable
FieldValue
Indicator codeNone, an engagement field
Question as askedCorporate Functional or LOB Operational
Failure categoryNot one of the 100 rated indicators
Place in the surveyNot a survey item
Indicator classEngagement attribute
Indicator typeEngagement attribute, categorical
Response scaleLevels: LOB Operational, Corporate Functional
Answering base150 engagements
Non-answersNone, the value is recorded for every engagement

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

Engagements split almost evenly between LOB Operational (76 of 150 engagements, 50.67%) and Corporate Functional (74 of 150 engagements, 49.33%) work. Cancellation was higher on LOB Operational engagements (39.47% canceled, n = 76 engagements) than on Corporate Functional engagements (35.14% canceled, n = 74 engagements), with no difference under test (chi-square 0.30, p 0.583, Cramer’s V 0.04, n = 150 engagements). Customer satisfaction on active engagements was close for LOB Operational (mean 63.8, n = 46 engagements) and Corporate Functional (mean 64.4, n = 48 engagements) engagements, with no difference under test (Welch F 0.05, p 0.828, omega squared −0.010, n = 94 engagements). The engagement indicator mean did not differ between the two classes of work (Welch F 0.07, p 0.795, omega squared −0.006, n = 150 engagements). Intent to leave did not differ between them either (Welch F 0.17, p 0.678, omega squared −0.006, n = 150 engagements). The class of work split differed after Holm control by process family (chi-square 62.13, Holm p < 0.001, Cramer’s V 0.71).

Distribution of Recorded Values

Table 3. Distribution of recorded valuesTable
AnswerEngagementsShare of answered (base 150)Cumulative shareEngagements with at least oneShare of 150 engagementsDistressed
LOB Operational7650.67%50.67%Not applicable, engagement levelNot applicable, engagement levelNot applicable
Corporate Functional7449.33%100.00%Not applicable, engagement levelNot applicable, engagement levelNot applicable
Answered, total150100.00%Not applicable, engagement levelNot applicable, engagement level

The value was recorded once per engagement, so every share counts out 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 set150150100.00% of 15015050.67%49.33%
Outsourcing model
CXM4242100.00% of 424245.24%54.76%
ITO4040100.00% of 404037.50%62.50%
BPO3737100.00% of 373764.86%35.14%
KPO3131100.00% of 313158.06%41.94%
Institution type
Asset management2424100.00% of 242450.00%50.00%
Wealth management and private banking2323100.00% of 232352.17%47.83%
Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination)1919100.00% of 191942.11%57.89%
Insurance (life, property and casualty, health)1414100.00% of 141457.14%42.86%
Commercial and business banking1313100.00% of 131353.85%46.15%
Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing)1313100.00% of 131353.85%46.15%
Credit card and payments issuing1212100.00% of 121250.00%50.00%
Retail and consumer banking1212100.00% of 121250.00%50.00%
Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets)1111100.00% of 111145.45%54.55%
Private equity and private capital999 of 9954
Process family
Corporate and back-office functions4747100.00% of 474719.15%80.85%
Technology engineering and operations3535100.00% of 353520.00%80.00%
Client servicing and communications1616100.00% of 161693.75%6.25%
Trade, settlement and reconciliation1515100.00% of 151586.67%13.33%
Payments, cards and disputes1212100.00% of 1212100.00%0.00%
Credit, underwriting and suitability999 of 9990
Regulatory, audit, tax and legal999 of 9945
Financial crime and client onboarding777 of 7770
Class of work
LOB OperationalIdentity, the segment is this indicator
Corporate FunctionalIdentity, the segment is this indicator
Engagement status and lifecycle stage
Active, Build-Out3131100.00% of 313135.48%64.52%
Active, Transition/Cut-Over4343100.00% of 434353.49%46.51%
Active, Production2020100.00% of 202060.00%40.00%
Canceled5656100.00% of 565653.57%46.43%

Shares are of the answered engagements 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 modelEngagement6.9330.0740.2220.21chi-squareNone
Institution typeEngagement1.0480.9980.9980.09chi-squarea
Process familyEngagement62.134< 0.001< 0.0010.71chi-squareb
Class of workIdentity, the segment is this indicator
Engagement status and lifecycle stageEngagement3.8830.2740.5490.16chi-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.

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 and engagement status and lifecycle stage.

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 recorded 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 recorded 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 recorded 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 recorded 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

Not applicable. The field was recorded once per engagement, so every respondent in an engagement shared one value.

Equivalence Tests of Null Results

Table 15. 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 16. 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

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 field has no signed correlation, so it has no profile. Its per-level means carry the comparison.

Interpretation of the Data

Class of work showed no difference on any of the four study measures. Every robustness check run on this field held (5 of 5 checks). The field lined up with process family (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.

No limit applied beyond the standing limits of this block.

Definitions

Table 17. DefinitionsTable
TermDefinition
Response scaleAs recorded, shown in Table 1. The indicator is not a rating, so no distressed range is defined.
Answering baseThe engagements on which the value is recorded.
Non-answersNone. The value is recorded for every engagement.
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 18. Sources and provenanceTable
ItemValue
Study dataStudy Data.xlsx, Engagements sheet, sha256 219eba0457274d04
Statistics enginecompute_statistics.py, sha256 738319eef764602b
Statistics recordComputed Statistics.json, record ENG:Corporate Functional or LOB Operational, sha256 e405f65a43e37a6e
ComputedOctober 8, 2026, 01:38 UTC
TemplateIndicator Statistical Analysis Template, version 1.1 of 2026-10-06
Figures placed by script556 of 556

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 →