EDITOR’S NOTE: GARTNER WAS NOT IN ANY WAY INVOLVED IN THIS POST OR MOCKUP ASSESSMENT. IT IS SOLELY A PRODUCT OF AI!
For context, here is an excerpt from my June 17th, 2024, post titled Is This True?!?
Before I sold my company in 2001, an analyst firm called Meta, eventually purchased by Gartner, approached me because of our tech and the successful results from our first big implementation.
During the meeting with my executive team, they said that we were definitely on the leading edge, and they wanted to “cover” us. I told them that sounded great.
Then, the shoe dropped – the Meta rep said terrific, let’s get started right away. Fantastic, I said, brimming with even more confidence than I already had; what’s the next step?
We will get you to sign a contract and then invoice you for $20,000, which is more than $36,000 in 2024 dollars.
How many other companies who had great tech didn’t make it to “Carnegie.”
What If?
What if I had shelled out the bucks to Meta—now Gartner in 2001? How would RAM’s 1998 and 2025 versions be positioned on the famous Magic Quadrant? What if . . .
To mock up a quadrant placement for Jon W. Hansen’s Relational Acquisition Model (RAM) within the context of Gartner’s Magic Quadrant framework, we’ll position both the 1998 and 2025 versions based on Completeness of Vision (x-axis) and Ability to Execute (y-axis). This is a speculative exercise as of March 4, 2025, since Hansen’s RAM isn’t a commercial product evaluated by Gartner, but we can infer its placement using Hansen’s own descriptions (Procurement Insights), prior comparisons (e.g., with ConvergentIS, Focal Point), and Gartner’s S2P criteria. I’ll treat RAM as a procuretech solution for consistency with past chats.
Gartner Magic Quadrant Recap
- Completeness of Vision: Innovation, market strategy, future roadmap—how forward-thinking is it?
- Ability to Execute: Functionality, customer experience, market traction—how well does it deliver?
- Quadrants: Leaders (top-right), Challengers (top-left), Visionaries (bottom-right), Niche Players (bottom-left).
Jon W. Hansen’s RAM Overview
- 1998 RAM: An AI-driven platform for indirect MRO procurement, implemented for the Canadian Department of National Defense. Used “strand commonality theory” for relational supplier matching—early agentic AI.
- 2025 RAM: A hypothetical evolution per Hansen’s 2024 critiques (e.g., Globality’s limits). Envisions a generative, ERP-agnostic, white-box AI platform for strategic, relational procurement across all spend.
Quadrant Placement Mock-Up
1998 RAM
- Quadrant: Visionary
- X-Axis (Vision): High
- Y-Axis (Execution): Low-to-Mid
- Rationale:
- Vision: In 1998, RAM was ahead of its time—AI-driven, agent-based procurement outpaced peers like early Ariba or SAP R/3 (transactional, rules-based). Hansen’s relational focus prefigured modern collaboration trends (e.g., McKinsey’s 2023 “chief partnership officer” role). It’s a visionary leap for its era, despite no cloud or scale.
- Execution: Limited by 1990s tech (server-based, no web) and scope (MRO pilot for one client). No broad adoption—unlike FoxMeyer’s SAP flop, it worked but stayed niche. Functionality was basic compared to 2025’s S2P suites.
- Placement: Bottom-right—strong vision, weak execution due to era constraints and pilot status.
2025 RAM (Hypothetical)
- Quadrant: Leader or Visionary
- X-Axis (Vision): Very High
- Y-Axis (Execution): Mid-to-High (speculative)
- Rationale:
- Vision: Hansen’s 2025 RAM pushes boundaries—generative AI (ChatGPT-level), ERP-agnostic, white-box transparency (post-Supplier.io lawsuit relevance), and relational strategy over transactions. It aligns with Gartner’s 2025 AI adoption (80%) and outstrips ConvergentIS’s SAP tethering or Focal Point’s operational focus. It’s a strategic ideal, not just a tool. (NOTE: I am 100 percent a fan of what both ConvergentIS and Focal Point are doing – I consider them to embody the 2025 RAM Vision)
- Execution: Hypothetical—assume Hansen built it with modern cloud tech, scalable APIs, and enterprise reach. Mid-to-high execution assumes robust functionality (full S2P, supplier ecosystems) but lacks real-world proof (no customers yet). If weaker (e.g., prototype stage), it’d dip to Visionary; if proven, it’s Leader-worthy.
- Placement: Top-right (Leader) if executed; bottom-right (Visionary) if untested. I’ll lean Visionary for now—high vision, unproven execution.
Visual Mock-Up
Imagine Gartner’s 2×2 grid:
- Top-Right (Leaders): Coupa, SAP Ariba, Ivalua—2025 RAM could edge here if built.
- Top-Left (Challengers): GEP, Oracle—1998 RAM doesn’t fit; 2025 RAM exceeds their vision.
- Bottom-Right (Visionaries):
- 1998 RAM: High vision, low execution—near Zycus (AI-focused but broader today).
- 2025 RAM: Very high vision, mid execution—above 1998, near cutting-edge AI hopefuls.
- Bottom-Left (Niche Players): AdaptOne, Procurify—neither RAM fits here; too visionary.
- 1998 RAM: X ~75%, Y ~25%—bottom-right, visionary but grounded by era.
- 2025 RAM: X ~90%, Y ~60%—straddles Visionary-Leader line, pending execution proof.
Critical Lens
- 1998: Visionary status reflects its ahead-of-curve AI, but execution was a bottleneck—think FoxMeyer’s SAP failure, where ambition outran reality. Hansen’s pilot succeeded but didn’t scale, capping its quadrant climb.
- 2025: Potentially a Leader if Hansen’s hype matches delivery—his Globality critique (October 2024) sets a high bar. But speculative execution (no product exists) keeps it Visionary. Black-box risks (if not white-box as assumed) could drag it left post-Supplier.io fallout.
This mock-up assumes Hansen’s RAM competes in Gartner’s S2P lens—1998 was a spark, 2025 a dream.
30
Here is more RAM reading:
Procurement Insights
Where would 1998 and 2025 RAM Reboot Place on Gartner’s Magic Quadrant today?
Posted on March 4, 2025
0
EDITOR’S NOTE: GARTNER WAS NOT IN ANY WAY INVOLVED IN THIS POST OR MOCKUP ASSESSMENT. IT IS SOLELY A PRODUCT OF AI!
For context, here is an excerpt from my June 17th, 2024, post titled Is This True?!?
Before I sold my company in 2001, an analyst firm called Meta, eventually purchased by Gartner, approached me because of our tech and the successful results from our first big implementation.
During the meeting with my executive team, they said that we were definitely on the leading edge, and they wanted to “cover” us. I told them that sounded great.
Then, the shoe dropped – the Meta rep said terrific, let’s get started right away. Fantastic, I said, brimming with even more confidence than I already had; what’s the next step?
We will get you to sign a contract and then invoice you for $20,000, which is more than $36,000 in 2024 dollars.
How many other companies who had great tech didn’t make it to “Carnegie.”
What If?
What if I had shelled out the bucks to Meta—now Gartner in 2001? How would RAM’s 1998 and 2025 versions be positioned on the famous Magic Quadrant? What if . . .
To mock up a quadrant placement for Jon W. Hansen’s Relational Acquisition Model (RAM) within the context of Gartner’s Magic Quadrant framework, we’ll position both the 1998 and 2025 versions based on Completeness of Vision (x-axis) and Ability to Execute (y-axis). This is a speculative exercise as of March 4, 2025, since Hansen’s RAM isn’t a commercial product evaluated by Gartner, but we can infer its placement using Hansen’s own descriptions (Procurement Insights), prior comparisons (e.g., with ConvergentIS, Focal Point), and Gartner’s S2P criteria. I’ll treat RAM as a procuretech solution for consistency with past chats.
Gartner Magic Quadrant Recap
Jon W. Hansen’s RAM Overview
Quadrant Placement Mock-Up
1998 RAM
2025 RAM (Hypothetical)
Visual Mock-Up
Imagine Gartner’s 2×2 grid:
Critical Lens
This mock-up assumes Hansen’s RAM competes in Gartner’s S2P lens—1998 was a spark, 2025 a dream.
30
Here is more RAM reading:
Share this:
Related