My greater team regularly alters client processes

The statement is rated from 1 to 10 with no good or bad end. The mean rating was 5.7 and the median 6.0 (n = 779 respondents). The rating was associated with all four study measures. Higher ratings came with more cancellation (r = 0.63, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.72, p < 0.001, n = 150 engagements), lower customer satisfaction among active engagements (r = −0.64, 95% CI −0.74 to −0.50, p < 0.001, n = 94 engagements), a lower engagement indicator mean (r = −0.83, 95% CI −0.87 to −0.77, p < 0.001, n = 150 engagements) and higher intent to leave (r = 0.65, cluster bootstrap 95% CI 0.59 to 0.71, p < 0.001 with standard errors clustered by engagement, n = 730 respondents). After Holm correction, ratings differed by engagement status and lifecycle stage (Welch F 37.33, Holm p < 0.001, omega squared 0.387) and respondent role (Welch F 63.68, Holm p < 0.001, omega squared 0.104).

Of the 111 written responses, 110 were negative. Most came under C210, where respondents described the alteration of the financial institution's processes as routine: decisions that did not come were made by the team, the change was made first and recorded later or not at all, the team lead usually knew, and the financial institution was seldom told. The single positive response described changes raised with the financial institution and agreed and logged before they were applied.

The scale has no good or bad end, so no distressed range applies.

The primary responses numbered 110, written in answer to C210, C208 and C204, the written-answer questions of the indicator's survey section. The remaining 1 responses, 0.90% of the total, were secondary and came from 1 other questions. That secondary share ranked 9th from the highest among the 13 Part 5 indicators with 30 or more written responses, against a median of 2.00%. Respondents who wrote both a primary and a secondary response numbered 0. Negative responses made up 99.09% of primary responses (109 of 110) and 1 of the 1 secondary responses.

The 99 responses to C210 described how often and how openly the team altered the processes. Respondents used words of frequency, such as every day, most weeks or seven out of ten, in 82 responses. The team lead or manager appeared in 41, most often as someone who knew or was told. Across all questions, respondents said that no one on the financial institution's side would make or own the decision, so the team made it, in 36 responses, and described change approval built for one change a month, a board that met rarely or a sign-off that never came in 34.

The change was made first and written up later, or not at all, in 10 responses across all questions, and kept within the team, unreported or unlogged in 13. Respondents said the financial institution was not told, or that they did not know whether it was, in 22 responses. Three responses said the financial institution had been told, or was well aware that the team made these calls itself. Among the eight responses to C208, respondents described a release board that thought in terms of one change a month while the team made several a day, and processes that were never written down.

Of the 111 responses, 110 (99.10%, 95% CI 97.00% to 100.00%) were negative and 95 (85.59%) carried the strongest negative score of −10. Positive responses numbered 1 (0.90%), and no response was neutral. The mean written score was −9.2 (95% CI −9.6 to −8.7, n = 111 responses), and the median was −10.0.

Of the 111 responses, 108 came from respondents who also rated the indicator. Among them, the written score fell with the rating (Spearman rho −0.33, 95% CI −0.49 to −0.14, p < 0.001, n = 108 responses). Respondents who agreed more strongly wrote more negatively.

Respondents who wrote about the indicator and gave a rating numbered 100, with a mean rating of 7.1. The 679 respondents who rated the indicator without writing about it had a mean of 5.5. The difference, 1.6 (95% CI 1.2 to 2.0), excluded zero.

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. After Holm correction, ratings differed by engagement status and lifecycle stage (Welch F 37.33, Holm p < 0.001, omega squared 0.387). Canceled engagements rated highest (mean 7.1, n = 291 respondents) and active engagements in Build-Out lowest (mean 4.6, n = 161 respondents). Ratings also differed by respondent role (Welch F 63.68, Holm p < 0.001, omega squared 0.104). Individual contributors rated highest (mean 6.0, n = 631 respondents) and portfolio directors lowest (mean 3.0, n = 18 respondents). Outsourcing model, institution type, process family, class of work and vendor type showed no difference.

Written sentiment did not differ by engagement status and lifecycle stage across the 66 engagements with a written response (Kruskal-Wallis H 1.31, df 3, p = 0.726). Of the groups with 10 or more responses, responses from active engagements in Build-Out were the most negative (mean −9.5, 10 responses) and responses from active engagements in Transition/Cut-Over the least negative (mean −8.6, 29 responses). Responses from active engagements in Production (6) are reported as counts only.

No test across respondent roles was run, because fewer than two roles had 30 or more written responses. Individual contributors wrote 102 responses, engagement managers 8 and portfolio directors 1.

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 more cancellation (r = 0.63, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.72, Holm p < 0.001, n = 150 engagements). The association held after Holm correction in fifteen 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 lower customer satisfaction (r = −0.64, 95% CI −0.74 to −0.50, Holm p < 0.001, n = 94 engagements). The association held after Holm correction in fourteen 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 does not enter the mean.

Higher ratings came with a lower engagement indicator mean (r = −0.83, 95% CI −0.87 to −0.77, 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 higher intent to leave (r = 0.65, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.69, Holm p < 0.001, n = 730 respondents). The association held after Holm correction in thirty-three of the 37 segment levels tested.

Two comparisons set the engagements with at least one negative response against all other engagements. Of the 85 other engagements, 84 had no written response addressing the indicator. These two comparisons therefore do not isolate written sentiment. Of the 65 engagements with a negative response, 33 (50.77%) were canceled, against 23 of the 85 other engagements (27.06%). The difference reached significance (Fisher exact p = 0.004). Customer satisfaction among active engagements differed between the two groups (mean 60.03% on 32 engagements against 66.19% on 62, Welch t −2.51, p = 0.015).

Two correlations test written sentiment directly. Across the 66 engagements with a written response, the engagement mean written score was not associated with cancellation (point-biserial r −0.15, p = 0.240). Across 99 respondents, the respondent mean written score was not associated with intent to leave (Spearman rho −0.14, p = 0.178). Of the four comparisons, two 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 = 0.739).

Answers clustered within engagements (ICC 0.58). Clustering reduced the 779 respondent answers to the equivalent of about 227 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.

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 departed from the study's typical pattern on all four measures. Its association was weaker than the norm on cancellation, customer satisfaction, the engagement indicator mean and intent to leave.

Among the 13 Part 5 indicators with 30 or more written responses, the indicator's share of negative responses, 99.10%, ranked 3rd from the highest, against a median of 98.03%. Its mean written score, −9.2, ranked 2nd from the most negative, against a median of −6.3.

The indicator most often present in the same responses was C205, “I have altered client processes”, in 103 of the 111 responses (92.79%). C206, “I discussed the process alteration with internal management” (51 responses), C207, “I or my management discussed process alteration with the client” (27 responses), C109, “Rate how quickly the customer responds when this engagement raises issues that need customer action.” (24 responses) and C100, “Rate how completely the customer's processes are mapped and documented to the depth agentic AI requires.” (11 responses) followed.

The most frequent theme was “Occurs every cycle or most days”, in 66 responses (59.46%). The second was “Told vendor-side management”, in 48 responses.

Stronger agreement that the wider team regularly alters the financial institution's processes came with more cancellation, lower customer satisfaction among active engagements, a lower engagement indicator mean and higher intent to leave, and every association held under each of the 22 robustness checks. Respondents on canceled engagements rated the statement well above those on the three active stages (mean 7.1, n = 291 respondents).

The written evidence describes process change as the team's answer to decisions that did not come and approval cycles slower than the work. The changes were made routinely, known to the team lead and seldom reported to the financial institution. The associations do not establish that the changes produced the outcomes. The written responses describe them as one response to the same gaps in decision rights and change control that the Part 5 ratings record.

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.

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 (111 responses on 66 engagements). Intervals for written sentiment therefore used a bootstrap by engagement.

The written responses are counted by sets of words stated in each rule. A response that described a practice in other words is not counted, so each count is a floor.