Engagement indicator mean

The engagement indicator mean across the study set was just above its median (mean 4.0, median 3.8, n = 150 engagements). Canceled engagements carried a lower engagement indicator mean (r = −0.72, 95% CI −0.79 to −0.63, p < 0.001, n = 150 engagements). A higher engagement indicator mean came with higher customer satisfaction on active engagements (r = 0.84, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.89, p < 0.001, n = 94 active engagements). This block is the engagement indicator mean itself, so its own cell was an identity by construction (r = 1.00). Respondents on engagements with a lower engagement indicator mean reported higher intent to leave (r = −0.78, cluster bootstrap 95% CI −0.82 to −0.74, p < 0.001, n = 798 respondents). The engagement indicator mean differed after Holm control by engagement status and lifecycle stage (Welch F 70.90, Holm p < 0.001, omega squared 0.509).

The value was recorded once per engagement, so every figure in this section counts out of 150 engagements. The mean was 4.0 and the median was 3.8, on 150 engagements.

Figures are engagement 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. Engagement status and lifecycle stage differed after Holm control (Welch F 70.90, Holm p < 0.001, tested on engagement means). In Descriptive Statistics by Segment, Active, Transition/Cut-Over had the highest mean, 4.9 (n = 43 engagements), and Canceled the lowest, 2.6 (n = 56 engagements). No difference held after Holm control for outsourcing model, institution type, process family and class of work.

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 −0.72 (95% CI −0.79 to −0.63, Holm p < 0.001, n = 150 engagements). Of the 20 tested segment levels, 17 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 0.84 (95% CI 0.77 to 0.89, Holm p < 0.001, n = 94 engagements). Of the 16 tested segment levels, 16 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.

This block is the measure itself, so its association with the measure is an identity, 1.00 by construction, in every segment, and not a finding.

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 −0.78 (95% CI −0.81 to −0.75, Holm p < 0.001, n = 798 respondents). Of the 28 tested segment levels, 27 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 3 pairs, 2 differed after Holm control.

Clustering reduced the 850 respondent answers to about 201 independent answers. Respondent level intervals therefore used the cluster bootstrap, and respondent level tests on intent to leave used cluster-robust errors.

No measure showed a tested null. No result was inconclusive. The detection floor column is the study floor at 150 engagements.

Each change was computed before rounding, so it can differ by 0.01 from the difference of the two printed values.

Rows for engagement indicator mean are left out because this indicator is that measure (V15-R21). Every check held. 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.

The measure against itself is 1 by construction and is not a finding. The other three were computed from other data.

Not applicable. A measure has no profile against itself.

Active, Transition/Cut-Over had the highest engagement indicator mean (mean 4.9, n = 43 engagements), and Canceled had the lowest (mean 2.6, n = 56 engagements). The measure did not differ by outsourcing model, institution type, process family, or class of work (Holm p 1.000 in every family). The associations with the other study measures held under every robustness check run on this measure (15 of 15 checks).

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.

Segment levels at anecdote strength were Private equity and private capital, Credit, underwriting and suitability, Regulatory, audit, tax and legal, and Financial crime and client onboarding (n = 9, n = 9, n = 9, n = 7). Answers clustered within engagements, which reduced the effective number of independent answers (ICC 0.69, 850 answers worth about 201 independent answers).