Rate how effectively the customer and vendor jointly manage this engagement now that agents perform part of the work

The mean rating was 3.7 and the median 4.0 (n = 789 respondents). Ratings of 3 or below, the distressed range, made up 48.80% of the answers. The rating was associated with all four study measures. Higher ratings came with less cancellation (r = −0.61, 95% CI −0.70 to −0.50, p < 0.001, n = 150 engagements), higher customer satisfaction among active engagements (r = 0.62, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.73, p < 0.001, n = 94 engagements), a higher engagement indicator mean computed without the indicator (r = 0.84, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.88, p < 0.001, n = 150 engagements) and lower intent to leave (r = −0.67, cluster bootstrap 95% CI −0.72 to −0.60, p < 0.001 with standard errors clustered by engagement, n = 739 respondents). After Holm correction, ratings differed by engagement status and lifecycle stage (Welch F 37.35, Holm p < 0.001, omega squared 0.375) and respondent role (Welch F 8.91, Holm p = 0.002, omega squared 0.018).

Written responses addressing the indicator numbered 209, from 199 respondents on 115 engagements. Of these, 127 (60.77%) were negative and 79 (37.80%) positive, a more even split than for most indicators. Negative responses described joint management that did not exist, or that met without deciding anything. Positive responses described joint calls that worked and placed the remaining weakness in the review step or in the means to stop an agent. Written sentiment was associated with all four study measures tested: engagements with a negative written response were canceled far more often and had lower customer satisfaction, and respondents whose written responses were more negative reported higher intent to leave.

Ratings of 3 or below, the distressed range, accounted for 385 of the 789 answers (48.80%). The engagement mean fell in the distressed range in 64 of 150 engagements.

The primary responses numbered 181, all written in answer to C156, “Add any comments on the joint management of this engagement that the ratings in this section do not capture.” The remaining 28 responses, 13.40% of the total, were secondary and came from 8 other questions. That secondary share ranked 41st from the highest among the 71 Part 2 indicators with 30 or more written responses, against a median of 18.92%. Respondents who wrote both a primary and a secondary response numbered 9. Negative responses made up 62.43% of primary responses (113 of 181) and 50.00% of secondary responses (14 of 28).

The 181 responses to C156, the comment field on joint management, supplied most of the written evidence (113 negative, 65 positive). Among the negative responses, 31 stated that no joint process, forum or management existed, or that the two sides never met. Several objected to the scale itself: a rating of one, they wrote, implies a weak joint process, not an absent one. A further 36 described joint arrangements that existed but did not decide: the same meeting held eleven times with the same open issues, a weekly call of twenty-two people mostly on mute, a duplicate payment finding that sat eleven days because neither side would say whose it was. Nine described two trackers, two incident bridges or two change logs, with a private sheet or a group chat serving as the real record. Eight described the toll on the team: analysts who resigned or asked to move, days spent idle in calls, and decisions carried that were not theirs to make.

The positive responses read differently. Forty-four said the joint calls or joint decisions worked, or had improved: issues closed in two days instead of weeks, both sides on an incident call within the hour, decision rights written down and followed. Several still named a gap. Twelve placed it in the review step, described as a checkbox, a backlog, or checks built for the mistakes a person makes and not those an agent makes. Eight placed it in stopping the agent: the decision needed the other side or a meeting, and overnight it took close to an hour. Four responses said the arrangement worked because two people spoke directly every morning, outside any documented process, and would not survive the departure of either person. All 13 responses to C030 named a genuine partnership with the institution among the best things about the job.

Of the 209 responses, 127 (60.77%, 95% CI 52.21% to 69.06%) were negative and 84 (40.19%) carried the strongest negative score of −10. Positive responses numbered 79 (37.80%), and 3 were neutral. The mean written score was −3.1 (95% CI −4.3 to −1.8, n = 209 responses), and the median was −5.0.

Of the 209 responses, 192 came from respondents who also rated the indicator. Among them, the written score rose with the rating (Spearman rho 0.65, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.73, p < 0.001, n = 192 responses). The written responses corroborated the rating. Of the 117 negative responses with a rating, 93 (79.49%) came from respondents whose rating was in the distressed range.

Respondents who wrote about the indicator and gave a rating numbered 183, with a mean rating of 3.4. The 606 respondents who rated the indicator without writing about it had a mean of 3.7. The difference, −0.3 (95% CI −0.6 to 0.1), included zero. Ratings in the distressed range made up 56.28% of the ratings from respondents who wrote (103 of 183) and 46.53% of the ratings from respondents who did not (282 of 606).

Every figure in the segment tables is at respondent level. Segments with fewer than 30 respondents carry no interval. Segments with fewer than 10 report counts only.

Segment families recorded at engagement level were tested on engagement means. Respondent role and vendor type were tested on respondents. Where an expected count fell below 5, the test of the distressed share used Fisher's exact test for a two-by-two table, marked exact, or a Monte Carlo test, marked simulated. After Holm correction, ratings differed by engagement status and lifecycle stage (Welch F 37.35, Holm p < 0.001, omega squared 0.375). Active engagements in Build-Out rated highest (mean 4.7, n = 165 respondents) and canceled engagements lowest (mean 2.2, n = 299 respondents). Ratings also differed by respondent role (Welch F 8.91, Holm p = 0.002, omega squared 0.018). Portfolio directors rated highest (mean 5.0, n = 30 respondents) and individual contributors lowest (mean 3.5, n = 607 respondents). Outsourcing model, institution type, process family, class of work and vendor type showed no difference.

Written sentiment differed by engagement status and lifecycle stage across the 115 engagements with a written response (Kruskal-Wallis H 35.01, df 3, p < 0.001). Of the groups with 10 or more responses, responses from canceled engagements were the most negative (mean −7.3, 94 responses) and responses from active engagements in Production the least negative (mean 1.1, 19 responses).

The role test compared individual contributors and engagement managers, the roles with 30 or more responses. Written sentiment differed (Kruskal-Wallis H 5.58, p = 0.018, n = 187 respondents): the mean written score was −4.0 for individual contributors (143 responses) and −1.7 for engagement managers (53 responses). Portfolio directors wrote 13 responses, reported as counts only.

Cancellation rate is the share of engagements canceled by the study date, measured at engagement level (150 engagements, 56 canceled). Canceled engagements were rated after cancellation. The association is therefore a descriptive contrast and not a forecast of cancellation.

Across the study set, higher ratings came with less cancellation (r = −0.61, 95% CI −0.70 to −0.50, Holm p < 0.001, n = 150 engagements). The association held after Holm correction in sixteen of the 20 segment levels tested.

Customer satisfaction is the percentage recorded against each engagement. The primary estimate uses the 94 active engagements. A descriptive contrast uses all 150 engagements.

Across the active engagements, higher ratings came with higher customer satisfaction (r = 0.62, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.73, Holm p < 0.001, n = 94 engagements). The association held after Holm correction in twelve of the 16 segment levels tested.

The engagement indicator mean is the mean of an engagement's ratings across the rated indicators, measured at engagement level (150 engagements). The indicator is one of the rated indicators. Each comparison therefore uses the mean recomputed without it.

Higher ratings came with a higher engagement indicator mean (r = 0.84, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.88, Holm p < 0.001, n = 150 engagements). The association held after Holm correction in twenty-four of the 24 segment levels tested.

Intent to leave is the answer to C019, “How likely are you to leave your current job in the next 12 months?”, rated 1 to 10. It is measured at respondent level on up to 798 respondents, with the engagement-level form reported alongside.

Respondents who gave higher ratings reported lower intent to leave (r = −0.67, 95% CI −0.70 to −0.62, Holm p < 0.001, n = 739 respondents). The association held after Holm correction in thirty-seven of the 37 segment levels tested.

Two comparisons set the engagements with at least one negative response against all other engagements. Of the 72 other engagements, 35 had no written response addressing the indicator. These two comparisons therefore do not isolate written sentiment. Of the 78 engagements with a negative response, 45 (57.69%) were canceled, against 11 of the 72 other engagements (15.28%). The difference reached significance (Fisher exact p < 0.001). Customer satisfaction among active engagements differed between the two groups (mean 59.06% on 33 engagements against 66.82% on 61, Welch t −3.38, p = 0.001).

Two correlations test written sentiment directly. Across the 115 engagements with a written response, a more negative engagement mean written score came with cancellation (point-biserial r −0.56, p < 0.001). Across 187 respondents, a more negative respondent mean written score came with higher intent to leave (Spearman rho −0.64, p < 0.001). Of the four comparisons, all reached significance at 0.05.

The four associations were compared in pairs on their engagement-level forms, each oriented so that a higher value is the better outcome, across the 150 engagements with all four measures. After Holm correction, five of the six pairs differed. The association with the engagement indicator mean was the strongest and the association with cancellation the weakest. The associations with customer satisfaction and intent to leave did not differ (Holm p = 0.629).

Answers clustered within engagements (ICC 0.69). Clustering reduced the 789 respondent answers to the equivalent of about 199 independent answers. Respondent-level intervals therefore used the cluster bootstrap. Respondent-level tests of intent to leave used standard errors that allow for clustering by engagement.

No association was equivalent to zero. Each of the four differed from zero. The detection floor shown is the study floor at 150 engagements. Intent to leave was tested on its effective sample size.

Each change was computed before rounding and may differ by 0.01 from the difference between the two printed values.

All 22 checks held. A check holds when its test falls on the same side of 0.05 as the primary test. Where the primary test falls below 0.05, the check must also keep the sign of the primary correlation. The thin-base check removes the engagements in any level of outsourcing model or process family with fewer than 30 engagements. Institution type is not used for that check, because every one of its levels has fewer than 30 engagements.

Each of the four measures was computed from data the indicator does not contain. Each result is therefore a finding and not an arithmetic consequence. The indicator is one of the rated indicators, and the engagement indicator mean was recomputed without it. The correction changed r by 0.00, from 0.84 to 0.84.

Each deviation was computed before rounding and may differ by 0.01 from the difference between the two printed values.

The comparison covered 150 engagements. The indicator followed the study's typical pattern on all four measures, and no deviation held after Holm correction.

Among the 71 Part 2 indicators with 30 or more written responses, the indicator's share of negative responses, 60.77%, ranked 69th from the highest, against a median of 80.82%. Its mean written score, −3.1, ranked 62nd from the most negative, against a median of −4.7.

The indicator most often present in the same responses was C144, “Rate how well the joint change control process keeps pace with the speed of agent behavior changes.”, in 24 of the 209 responses (11.48%). C143, “Rate how quickly the two firms together can stop an agent that is behaving badly in live operations.” (19 responses), C148, “Rate how well joint human review capacity keeps up with the volume of output the agents produce.” (19 responses), C036, “What stage is the engagement in?” (17 responses) and C141, “Rate how effectively the two firms manage issues arising from agent work as one team rather than through two separate processes.” (16 responses) followed.

The most frequent theme was “Comparison to a prior engagement”, in 30 responses (14.35%). The second was “The scale or question does not fit”, in 28 responses.

Nearly half of all ratings of how effectively the institution and the vendor jointly manage the engagement fell in the distressed range (385 of 789 answers, 48.80%). The rating was associated with all four study measures, and every association held under each of the 22 robustness checks. Canceled engagements rated far below the three active stages (mean 2.2, n = 299 respondents).

The written responses describe two kinds of engagement. In one, no joint structure existed, or it existed on paper and decided nothing, and the work proceeded through separate trackers and private records. In the other, the two sides met, decided and closed issues, and the remaining weakness lay in the controls an agent requires: a review step that actually reviews, and a way to stop the agent quickly. The written sentiment was itself strongly associated with cancellation and with intent to leave.

The evidence is the reported experience of the vendor's delivery teams, collected in a single cross-section. The associations reported here are not causal.

Tests by respondent role and by vendor type treated respondents as independent. The section on clustering reports how far clustering within engagements reduced the information in respondent-level figures.

Customer management executives gave 2 answers, a base of anecdote strength.

Shares of written sentiment are shares of responses and not of the study set of respondents. The written score takes five fixed values, so its mean and median are coarse. Responses clustered within engagements (209 responses on 115 engagements). Intervals for written sentiment therefore used a bootstrap by engagement.