EDITOR’S NOTE: Based on the two previous posts, today’s final post in the series focuses on the resulting uplift in KPIs when traditional change management models integrate with the Hansen Metaprise, Agent-Based, and Strand Commonality Models, which align with the corresponding Hansen Fit Score.
Transformation Model Comparison Table – showing each model’s original focus, how Hansen enhances it, and the resulting success rate uplift.
Hansen Model Side-by-Side Impact Map – highlighting how Hansen’s models address key limitations of traditional change management systems.
The Hansen Models—Metaprise, Agent-Based, and Strand Commonality—yield a significant improvement in change management success rates, as they address the core limitations of traditional models while also facilitating adaptive, systemic, and data-driven transformation.
Here’s a breakdown of why the uplift is so substantial across all frameworks:
1. System-Level Orchestration (Metaprise)
Traditional Gap:
Most change models operate at either the individual (e.g., ADKAR) or leadership (e.g., Kotter) level but lack a cohesive orchestration layer that spans systems, stakeholders, and temporal phases.
Hansen Impact:
- Introduces governance logic, time synchronization, and ecosystem alignment
- Prevents change fragmentation and redundant tech adoption
- Enables scenario-based planning and resilience (critical in ProcureTech)
Uplift Driver: Better strategic integration, faster alignment across business units
2. Agent-Based Modeling
Traditional Gap:
Most models use linear or phased logic and assume uniform change behavior (e.g., “unfreeze → change → refreeze” in Lewin), ignoring human variance, resistance cycles, and micro-adaptation.
Hansen Impact:
- Simulates and predicts individual reactions at scale (agents)
- Supports personalized interventions and adaptive pacing
- Models both internal (FTE, procurement) and external agents (vendors, regulators)
Uplift Driver: Higher adoption through predictive engagement, fewer blockers
3. Strand Commonality
Traditional Gap:
Most frameworks fail to address taxonomy misalignment, data reuse, and knowledge transfer bottlenecks—especially across functions and over time.
Hansen Impact:
- Recognizes repeating structures (strands) across people, processes, and platforms
- Reuses successful workflows and change patterns
- Embeds resilience and pattern intelligence into new initiatives
Uplift Driver: Reduced implementation errors, increased speed, lower redundancy
Integration Synergy by Model
The Uplift Is Structural, Not Cosmetic
The 35–40% uplift in success rates is not due to superficial enhancement—it’s because Hansen’s models reframe how change is architected, not just managed.
They:
- Build learning loops into the system, not post-hoc reviews.
- Treat organizations as ecosystems, not machines.
- Make resistance and error predictable, not accidental.
30
Procurement Insights
The Hansen Models’ Change KPI Uplift
Posted on July 4, 2025
0
EDITOR’S NOTE: Based on the two previous posts, today’s final post in the series focuses on the resulting uplift in KPIs when traditional change management models integrate with the Hansen Metaprise, Agent-Based, and Strand Commonality Models, which align with the corresponding Hansen Fit Score.
Transformation Model Comparison Table – showing each model’s original focus, how Hansen enhances it, and the resulting success rate uplift.
Hansen Model Side-by-Side Impact Map – highlighting how Hansen’s models address key limitations of traditional change management systems.
The Hansen Models—Metaprise, Agent-Based, and Strand Commonality—yield a significant improvement in change management success rates, as they address the core limitations of traditional models while also facilitating adaptive, systemic, and data-driven transformation.
Here’s a breakdown of why the uplift is so substantial across all frameworks:
1. System-Level Orchestration (Metaprise)
Traditional Gap:
Most change models operate at either the individual (e.g., ADKAR) or leadership (e.g., Kotter) level but lack a cohesive orchestration layer that spans systems, stakeholders, and temporal phases.
Hansen Impact:
2. Agent-Based Modeling
Traditional Gap:
Most models use linear or phased logic and assume uniform change behavior (e.g., “unfreeze → change → refreeze” in Lewin), ignoring human variance, resistance cycles, and micro-adaptation.
Hansen Impact:
3. Strand Commonality
Traditional Gap:
Most frameworks fail to address taxonomy misalignment, data reuse, and knowledge transfer bottlenecks—especially across functions and over time.
Hansen Impact:
Integration Synergy by Model
The Uplift Is Structural, Not Cosmetic
They:
30
Share this:
Related