Engagement Phase

Build-Out (60 of 150 engagements, 40.00%) and Transition/Cut-Over (60 of 150 engagements, 40.00%) were the most common engagement phases, ahead of Production (30 of 150 engagements, 20.00%). Cancellation was highest in Build-Out (48.33% canceled, n = 60 engagements) and lowest in Transition/Cut-Over (28.33% canceled, n = 60 engagements), with no difference under test (chi-square 5.39, p 0.068, Cramer’s V 0.19, n = 150 engagements). Customer satisfaction on active engagements ranged from Build-Out (mean 63.2, n = 31 engagements) to Production (mean 66.8, n = 20 engagements), with no difference under test (Welch F 0.68, p 0.511, omega squared −0.007, n = 94 engagements). The engagement indicator mean was higher in Production (mean 4.2, n = 30 engagements) than in Build-Out (mean 3.8, n = 60 engagements), with no difference under test (Welch F 1.32, p 0.272, omega squared 0.003, n = 150 engagements). Intent to leave was highest in Build-Out (mean 7.1, n = 60 engagements) and lowest in Production (mean 6.4, n = 30 engagements), with no difference under test (Welch F 1.11, p 0.333, omega squared 0.002, n = 150 engagements). The phase mix differed after Holm control by institution type (chi-square 31.07, Holm p 0.032, Cramer’s V 0.33) and by class of work (chi-square 9.64, Holm p 0.032, Cramer’s V 0.25).

The indicator had 162 written responses coded to it, from 139 of 850 respondents on 69 of 150 engagements. Negative responses numbered 33 of the 162 scored responses (20.37%). The strongest negative score, −10, was carried by 10 of the 162 scored responses (6.17%). Every response was a secondary response.

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.

All 162 responses were secondary responses. The secondary responses came from 139 respondents on 69 engagements, in answer to 14 questions (most often C030 with 61 responses, C156 with 20 responses and C114 with 17 responses). Among the Part 1 indicators with 30 or more scored responses, the secondary share of the indicator ranked 1 of 6 from the highest, tied with 4 other indicators. The median secondary share was 100.00% across the 6 indicators.

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 engagement field is “ENG:Engagement Phase.” 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 . . . .”

Of the 162 scored responses, 33 (20.37%) were negative, 10 (6.17%) carried the strongest negative score and 5 (3.09%) were positive. The responses had a mean written score of −1.2 (95% CI −1.7 to −0.7, n = 162 responses on 69 engagements).

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.

Engagement families were tested on engagement answers, and respondent role and vendor type were tested on respondents. Institution type differed in the answer mix after Holm control (chi-square 31.07, Holm p 0.032, Cramer’s V 0.33). Class of work differed in the answer mix after Holm control (chi-square 9.64, Holm p 0.032, Cramer’s V 0.25). No difference held after Holm control for outsourcing model and process family.

Scored responses came from 11 engagements in the Active, Build-Out group, 9 engagements in the Active, Transition/Cut-Over group, 1 engagement in the Active, Production group and 48 engagements in the Canceled group. A test of mean written scores across the groups, with each engagement counted once, showed no difference that reached significance at 0.05 (Kruskal-Wallis H 3.05, df 2, p = 0.218, n = 68 engagements). The test compared the Active, Build-Out group, the Active, Transition/Cut-Over group and the Canceled group. It left out the Active, Production group, which held fewer than two engagements. Groups under 10 responses are reported as counts only. Negative responses numbered 0 of 1 in the Active, Production group.

The role test compared individual contributors and engagement managers, the roles with 30 or more scored responses. A test of mean written scores between the two roles, with each respondent counted once, showed no difference that reached significance at 0.05 (Kruskal-Wallis H 1.91, df 1, p = 0.167, n = 133 respondents). The roles compared had mean written scores of −1.3 for individual contributors (n = 109 responses) and −0.4 for engagement managers (n = 45 responses). Roles under 10 responses are reported as counts only. Among portfolio directors, negative responses numbered 4 of 7. Among customer management executives, negative responses numbered 0 of 1.

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.

The test across answer levels, in the study set and inside each segment. Levels under 10 engagements were left out of each test.

Cancellation in the study set did not differ across answer levels (chi-square 5.39, p 0.068, n = 150 engagements).

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.

The test across answer levels, in the study set and inside each segment. Levels under 10 engagements were left out of each test.

The measure in the study set did not differ across answer levels (Welch F 0.68, p 0.511, n = 94 engagements). The clean estimate ran inside active engagements only.

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.

The test across answer levels, in the study set and inside each segment. Levels under 10 engagements were left out of each test.

The measure in the study set did not differ across answer levels (Welch F 1.32, p 0.272, n = 150 engagements).

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.

The test across answer levels, in the study set and inside each segment. Levels under 10 engagements were left out of each test.

The measure in the study set did not differ across answer levels (Welch F 1.11, p 0.333, n = 150 engagements).

The cancellation and customer satisfaction contrasts compared engagements with a negative written response against all other engagements. The comparison group comprised 123 other engagements, of which 81 had no scored written response coded to the indicator and 42 had only scored responses that were not negative. The two contrasts therefore did not test written sentiment by themselves. Cancellation was recorded for 17 of the 27 engagements with a negative response (62.96%), against 39 of the 123 other engagements (31.71%). The difference reached significance at 0.05 (Fisher exact p = 0.004). Mean customer satisfaction was 58.00% on the 10 active engagements with a negative response, against 64.82% on the 84 other active engagements. The difference did not reach significance at 0.05 (Welch t −1.74, p = 0.109). 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 did not reach significance at 0.05 (r = 0.06, p = 0.598, n = 69 engagements). The association of the respondent mean written score with intent to leave did not reach significance at 0.05 (rho = 0.01, p = 0.877, n = 134 respondents). Of the four outcome comparisons, one reached significance at 0.05: the cancellation contrast. Both comparisons with cancellation were descriptive, because responses on canceled engagements were written after cancellation.

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.

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

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.

Every check held. A check holds when its test lands on the same side of 0.05 as the primary test.

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.

Not applicable. A categorical field has no signed correlation, so it has no profile. Its per-level means carry the comparison.

The peer set comprised 101 indicators of the four Parts with 30 or more scored responses. The indicator was within the peer set. Its share of negative responses ranked 92 of 101 from the highest. Its mean written score (−1.2, n = 162 responses) ranked 89 of 101 from the most negative. The peer median of the mean written score was −4.6 across the 101 indicators.

The indicator’s twin, C036, records the same fact under the coding rulebook’s twin rule. The twin was coded in all 162 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 “ENG:Is Canceled?” (52 responses). The second most frequent co-coded indicator was “How long ago did this specific engagement start, in months?” (C035, 22 responses). The most frequent theme of the coding rulebook in the same responses was “Skills learned” (49 responses).

No study measure differed across engagement phases under test. Cancellation came closest to a difference (chi-square 5.39, p 0.068, Cramer’s V 0.19, n = 150 engagements). Every robustness check run on this field held (5 of 5 checks).

The indicator is an engagement field, 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 recorded values.

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.

The Production phase rested on a smaller base than the other two phases (30 of 150 engagements, 20.00%).

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. Intervals for written sentiment used a bootstrap by engagement. Coding was performed by AI coders under a fixed rulebook. Agreement on whether a response was coded to the indicator rested on 27 responses second-coded under rulebook 0.5, with the coders agreeing on 21 of 27. Agreement on the score rested on 11 responses second-scored under rulebook 0.6, with the scores agreeing in 4 of 11. These bases of second-coded responses are too small for an indicator-level alpha.