Rate how well the customer’s legacy systems support the integration this engagement requires

Ratings of how well the financial institution’s legacy systems supported the integration the engagement required (mean 3.5, median 3.0, n = 801 respondents) were associated with all four study measures. Engagements with higher ratings were canceled less often (r = −0.58, 95% CI −0.67 to −0.46, p < 0.001, n = 150 engagements). Higher ratings came with higher customer satisfaction on active engagements (r = 0.72, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.80, p < 0.001, n = 94 active engagements). Ratings rose with the engagement indicator mean, computed with this item left out (r = 0.82, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.87, p < 0.001, n = 150 engagements). Respondents who gave higher ratings reported lower intent to leave (r = −0.60, cluster bootstrap 95% CI −0.67 to −0.53, p < 0.001, n = 755 respondents). Ratings differed after Holm control by engagement status and lifecycle stage (Welch F 28.25, Holm p < 0.001, omega squared 0.320), by respondent role (Welch F 11.17, Holm p < 0.001, omega squared 0.020), and by vendor type (Welch F 3.34, Holm p 0.031, omega squared 0.014).

The indicator had 231 written responses coded to it, from 212 of 850 respondents on 116 of 150 engagements. Negative responses numbered 216 of the 231 scored responses (93.51%). The strongest negative score, −10, was carried by 117 of the 231 scored responses (50.65%). Secondary responses, written in answer to questions outside the indicator’s own survey section, numbered 189 of the 231 responses (81.82%). Respondents who wrote and respondents who did not rated the indicator equally to one decimal (mean 3.5, n = 200 respondents, against mean 3.5, n = 601 respondents).

The study set mean was 3.5 on 801 answering respondents, with a median of 3.0. 416 answers, 51.94% of the 801, were at the distressed end. A distressed engagement mean was recorded in 65 of 150 engagements.

Of the 231 responses, 42 (18.18%) were primary and 189 (81.82%) were secondary. The secondary responses came from 176 respondents on 109 engagements, in answer to 8 questions outside the indicator’s own survey section (most often C029 with 128 responses, C202 with 37 responses, C055 with 7 responses and C208 with 7 responses). Both a primary and a secondary response came from 6 respondents. Among the Part 2 indicators with 30 or more scored responses, the secondary share of the indicator ranked 5 of 71 from the highest. The median secondary share was 18.92% across the 71 indicators.

Negative responses made up 185 of the 189 secondary responses (97.88%), against 31 of the 42 primary responses (73.81%). The difference reached significance at 0.05 (Fisher exact p < 0.001, n = 231 responses). The share of negative responses was larger among secondary responses than among primary responses.

Of the 231 scored responses, 216 (93.51%) were negative, 117 (50.65%) carried the strongest negative score and 14 (6.06%) were positive. The responses had a mean written score of −6.9 (95% CI −7.4 to −6.3, n = 231 responses on 116 engagements).

Respondents who rated the indicator 3 or below wrote 118 of the 203 negative responses with a rating. Written score and rating showed a strong positive correlation that reached significance at 0.05 (Spearman rho 0.51, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.61, p < 0.001, n = 218 responses on 112 engagements). Its interval excluded zero. Where a written score diverges from the same respondent’s rating, the rating is the measure of the indicator.

Respondents who wrote about the indicator and respondents who did not rated it equally to one decimal (mean 3.5, n = 200 respondents, against mean 3.5, n = 601 respondents). Ratings of 3 or below came from 104 of the 200 respondents who wrote and gave a rating (52.00%), against 312 of the 601 respondents who did not write and gave a rating (51.91%). Respondents who wrote formed a self-selected group and not a random sample of the answering base, because written responses were voluntary.

Figures are respondent level. Means are on the goodness view. 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 28.25, Holm p < 0.001, tested on engagement means). In Descriptive Statistics by Segment, Active, Transition/Cut-Over had the highest mean, 4.4 (n = 232 respondents), and Canceled the lowest, 2.3 (n = 308 respondents). Respondent role differed after Holm control (Welch F 11.17, Holm p < 0.001, tested on respondents). In Descriptive Statistics by Segment, Portfolio Director had the highest mean, 4.8 (n = 31 respondents), and Individual Contributor the lowest, 3.4 (n = 618 respondents). Vendor type differed after Holm control (Welch F 3.34, Holm p 0.031, tested on respondents). In Descriptive Statistics by Segment, Pure-play agentic AI firm had the highest mean, 4.0 (n = 70 respondents), and BPO specialist the lowest, 3.2 (n = 184 respondents). No difference held after Holm control for outsourcing model, institution type, process family and class of work.

Scored responses came from 21 engagements in the Active, Build-Out group, 34 engagements in the Active, Transition/Cut-Over group, 17 engagements in the Active, Production group and 44 engagements in the Canceled group. A test of mean written scores across the groups, with each engagement counted once, showed a difference that reached significance at 0.05 (Kruskal-Wallis H 25.80, df 3, p < 0.001, n = 116 engagements). Among the groups with 10 or more responses, the lowest mean written score came from the Canceled group (−8.8, n = 84 responses). The highest came from the Active, Production group (−5.3, n = 29 responses).

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 0.01, df 1, p = 0.912, n = 206 respondents). The roles compared had mean written scores of −7.0 for individual contributors (n = 189 responses) and −6.5 for engagement managers (n = 36 responses). Roles under 10 responses are reported as counts only. Among portfolio directors, negative responses numbered 5 of 6.

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 −0.58 (95% CI −0.67 to −0.46, Holm p < 0.001, n = 150 engagements). Of the 20 tested segment levels, 11 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 0.72 (95% CI 0.60 to 0.80, Holm p < 0.001, n = 94 engagements). Of the 16 tested segment levels, 13 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.

The study set r was 0.82 (95% CI 0.76 to 0.87, Holm p < 0.001, n = 150 engagements). Of the 24 tested segment levels, 24 held after Holm control.

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 −0.60 (95% CI −0.65 to −0.56, Holm p < 0.001, n = 755 respondents). Of the 37 tested segment levels, 35 held after Holm control.

The cancellation and customer satisfaction contrasts compared engagements with a negative written response against all other engagements. The comparison group comprised 37 other engagements, of which 34 had no scored written response coded to the indicator and 3 had only scored responses that were not negative. The two contrasts therefore did not test written sentiment by themselves. Cancellation was recorded for 44 of the 113 engagements with a negative response (38.94%), against 12 of the 37 other engagements (32.43%). The difference did not reach significance at 0.05 (Fisher exact p = 0.559). Mean customer satisfaction was 63.49% on the 69 active engagements with a negative response, against 65.76% on the 25 other active engagements. The difference did not reach significance at 0.05 (Welch t −0.77, p = 0.447). 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 reached significance at 0.05 (r = −0.41, p < 0.001, n = 116 engagements). The association of the respondent mean written score with intent to leave reached significance at 0.05 (rho = −0.47, p < 0.001, n = 199 respondents). Of the four outcome comparisons, two reached significance at 0.05: the correlation of the engagement mean written score with cancellation and the correlation of the respondent mean written score with intent to leave. Both comparisons with cancellation were descriptive, because responses on canceled engagements were written after cancellation.

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 6 pairs, 5 differed after Holm control.

Clustering reduced the 801 respondent answers to about 220 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. Intent to leave was tested on its effective n.

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

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.

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. This indicator is one of the 100 components, so the engagement indicator mean was recomputed without it, and the correction changed r by 0.00, from 0.83 to 0.82.

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

The comparison ran on 150 engagements. The indicator followed the study’s typical pattern on every measure.

The peer set comprised 71 indicators of Part 2 with 30 or more scored responses. The indicator was within the peer set. Its share of negative responses ranked 6 of 71 from the highest. Its mean written score (−6.9, n = 231 responses) ranked 7 of 71 from the most negative. The peer median of the mean written score was −4.7 across the 71 indicators.

The responses coded to the indicator were most often also coded to “Rate the quality of the customer’s data across the systems this engagement depends on” (C094, 36 responses). The second most frequent co-coded indicator was “I have altered client-provided data” (C199, 32 responses). The most frequent theme of the coding rulebook in the same responses was “Occurs every cycle or most days” (16 responses).

Distressed answers made up more than half of the study set (416 of 801 answers, 51.94%). Active, Transition/Cut-Over had the highest mean by lifecycle stage (mean 4.4, n = 232 respondents), and Canceled had the lowest (mean 2.3, n = 308 respondents). Portfolio Director respondents gave the highest ratings by role (mean 4.8, n = 31 respondents), and Individual Contributor respondents gave the lowest (mean 3.4, n = 618 respondents). The associations held under every robustness check run on this item (22 of 22 checks).

The written responses corroborated the rating at respondent level, with a strong positive correlation between written score and rating. Of the 36 responses also coded to C094, 23 were secondary responses to the indicator. Written responses were voluntary. They recorded what the respondents who wrote reported, and how common it was is measured by the ratings.

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 Management Executive answers were at anecdote strength (n = 2). Answers clustered within engagements, which reduced the effective number of independent answers (ICC 0.61, 801 answers worth about 220 independent answers).

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 26 responses second-coded under rulebook 0.5, with the coders agreeing on 17 of 26. Agreement on the score rested on 17 responses second-scored under rulebook 0.5, with the scores agreeing in 17 of 17. These bases of second-coded responses are too small for an indicator-level alpha.