Use Case

Corporate and back-office functions was the most common process family (47 of 150 engagements, 31.33%), ahead of Technology engineering and operations (35 of 150 engagements, 23.33%). Cancellation ranged from Payments, cards and disputes at the low end (16.67% canceled, n = 12 engagements) to Client servicing and communications at the high end (56.25% canceled, n = 16 engagements), with no difference under test (chi-square 7.48, p 0.113, Cramer’s V 0.24, n = 125 engagements). Customer satisfaction on active engagements ranged from Corporate and back-office functions (mean 63.5, n = 28 engagements) to Payments, cards and disputes (mean 65.6, n = 10 engagements), with no difference under test (Welch F 0.16, p 0.850, omega squared −0.027, n = 63 engagements). The engagement indicator mean was lowest for Trade, settlement and reconciliation (mean 3.6, n = 15 engagements) and highest for Payments, cards and disputes (mean 4.4, n = 12 engagements), with no difference under test (Welch F 1.20, p 0.325, omega squared 0.003, n = 125 engagements). Intent to leave was lowest for Payments, cards and disputes (mean 5.2, n = 12 engagements) and highest for Trade, settlement and reconciliation (mean 7.5, n = 15 engagements), with no difference under test (Welch F 1.77, p 0.155, omega squared 0.031, n = 125 engagements). The process family mix differed after Holm control by outsourcing model (chi-square 157.43, Holm p < 0.001, Cramer’s V 0.59), by institution type (chi-square 79.87, Holm p 0.036, Cramer’s V 0.28), and by class of work (chi-square 78.91, Holm p < 0.001, Cramer’s V 0.73).

The indicator had 33 written responses coded to it, from 33 of 850 respondents on 24 of 150 engagements. Negative responses numbered 6 of the 33 scored responses (18.18%). No response carried the strongest negative score, −10. 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 33 responses were secondary responses. The secondary responses came from 33 respondents on 24 engagements, in answer to 5 questions (most often C030 with 26 responses, C114 with 2 responses, C135 with 2 responses and C177 with 2 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:Use Case.” 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 33 scored responses, 6 (18.18%) were negative, none carried the strongest negative score and 27 (81.82%) were positive. The responses had a mean written score of 3.3 (95% CI 1.8 to 4.6, n = 33 responses on 24 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. Outsourcing model differed in the answer mix after Holm control (chi-square 157.43, Holm p < 0.001, Cramer’s V 0.59). Institution type differed in the answer mix after Holm control (chi-square 79.87, Holm p 0.036, Cramer’s V 0.28). Class of work differed in the answer mix after Holm control (chi-square 78.91, Holm p < 0.001, Cramer’s V 0.73). No difference held after Holm control for engagement status and lifecycle stage.

Scored responses came from 6 engagements in the Active, Build-Out group, 7 engagements in the Active, Transition/Cut-Over group, 1 engagement in the Active, Production group and 10 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 2.90, df 2, p = 0.235, n = 23 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.

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 engagement managers, negative responses numbered 1 of 8. Among portfolio directors, negative responses numbered 0 of 3.

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 (Monte Carlo, simulated, chi-square 7.48, p 0.113, n = 125 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 0.16, p 0.850, n = 63 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 1.20, p 0.325, n = 125 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 1.77, p 0.155, n = 125 engagements).

The cancellation contrast compared engagements with a negative written response against all other engagements. The comparison group comprised 144 other engagements, of which 126 had no scored written response coded to the indicator and 18 had only scored responses that were not negative. The contrast therefore did not test written sentiment by itself. Cancellation was recorded for 3 of the 6 engagements with a negative response, against 53 of the 144 other engagements (36.81%). The difference did not reach significance at 0.05 (Fisher exact p = 0.672). The customer satisfaction contrast was not computed, because only 3 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 did not reach significance at 0.05 (r = −0.21, p = 0.333, n = 24 engagements). The association of the respondent mean written score with intent to leave did not reach significance at 0.05 (rho = 0.02, p = 0.921, n = 33 respondents). None of the 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.

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: customer satisfaction and engagement indicator mean.

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 95 of 101 from the highest. Its mean written score (3.3, n = 33 responses) ranked 97 of 101 from the most negative. The peer median of the mean written score was −4.6 across the 101 indicators.

The responses coded to the indicator were most often also coded to “How happy are you with your current job?” (C018, 6 responses). The second most frequent co-coded indicator was “My manager is effective” (C080, 4 responses). The most frequent theme of the coding rulebook in the same responses was “Team or colleagues” (15 responses).

Payments, cards and disputes sat at the favorable end of every study measure, though no test separated the process families. Every robustness check run on this field held (5 of 5 checks). Process family sorted engagements by outsourcing model, institution type, and class of work, and it showed no association with the four study measures.

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 tests on cancellation, the engagement indicator mean and intent to leave left out Credit, underwriting and suitability, Regulatory, audit, tax and legal, and Financial crime and client onboarding (n = 9, n = 9, n = 7 engagements in each). The customer satisfaction test left out Client servicing and communications, Trade, settlement and reconciliation, and the same three families (n = 7, n = 7, n = 8, n = 5, n = 4 engagements).

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 4 responses second-coded under rulebook 0.5, with the coders agreeing on 2 of 4. Agreement on the score rested on 5 responses second-scored under rulebook 0.6, with the scores agreeing in 5 of 5. These bases of second-coded responses are too small for an indicator-level alpha.