The Taxonomy Of ProcureTech Implementation Failures

MODEL 1

While over half of organizations have some form of classification policy, fewer have fully aligned, organization-wide taxonomies. Estimates suggest only 20–30% of organizations achieve high-quality taxonomy alignment, with higher rates in sectors facing regulatory pressure (e.g., utilities, finance).

MODEL 2

Approximately 20–50% of companies use a properly aligned taxonomy, with 40–60% in regulated/large enterprises, 20–40% in procurement functions of large firms, and 10–20% or less in SMEs. For precise adoption rates, monitor industry reports from SIG, ISM, or CIPS, or consult procurement analytics platforms. If you need deeper analysis or procurement-specific taxonomy examples, let me know.

MODEL 3

Sector and regional differences are significant: Energy and Utilities sectors lead in alignment (30-45%) due to clearer technical criteria and direct mapping to environmental objectives, with Manufacturing and Transportation showing moderate progress (15-25%), while Financial Services, Technology, and Consumer Goods typically achieve lower alignment rates (5-10%).

MODEL 4

However, many organizations struggle with implementing effective taxonomies. For instance, in the context of the EU Taxonomy Regulation, companies reported an average of 12.9% aligned revenue, indicating a significant gap in aligning activities with standardized taxonomies. This suggests that a substantial number of organizations have yet to fully realize the benefits of a well-structured taxonomy.

Given the above, it is clear that most organizations are far from being “digital ready.” Here are just two of the more recent articles I have written regarding digital readiness:

• What is your organization’s digital readiness and what it means to your future employment? (November 12, 2019)
• Digital Readiness: How To Build A Digital Culture That Embraces The Future Rather Than Fears It (September 1, 2022)

Digital Readiness Is Not A New Issue

Digital readiness—the organizational capacity to adopt, integrate, and leverage digital technologies effectively—has been a recognized challenge for organizations since the early 2000s, coinciding with the rise of e-commerce, enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems, and the broader digital transformation wave. Its prominence as a problem has grown over time, driven by accelerating technological advancements and increasing competitive pressures.

Rather than focusing on the chronological aspects of digital readiness, I want to focus on its impact on ProcureTech implementation success, as the issue transcends digital era technologies.

Digital readiness directly influences the success of ProcureTech implementation, including platforms leveraging Generative AI (e.g., report generation) and Agentic AI (e.g., autonomous supplier negotiations).

Below, I analyze its impact across key dimensions, incorporating insights from sources like Procurement Insights, Spend Matters, McKinsey, and many others.

1. Data Quality and Taxonomy Alignment:
   • Challenge: Low digital readiness often manifests as poor data management, including misaligned or absent taxonomies. As noted previously, only 20–40% of procurement organizations have properly aligned taxonomies, leading to inconsistent, incomplete, or duplicated data.
   • Impact on ProcureTech:
     • Generative AI: Poor taxonomies cause inaccurate outputs (e.g., flawed spend analyses), as AI misinterprets uncategorized data. SAP Ariba warns that unreliable data leads to AI errors, reducing trust.
     • Agentic AI: Autonomous decisions (e.g., supplier selection) fail if data is fragmented, risking costly mistakes. GEP notes that small data errors compound in AI-driven processes.
   • Success Impact: Organizations with high readiness (e.g., robust taxonomies, clean data) achieve 30–50% faster ROI on ProcureTech, per Deloitte (2022), while low-readiness firms face delays or failures due to data issues.
2. Employee Skills and Cultural Adoption:
   • Challenge: Digital readiness requires skilled employees and a culture open to change. Emerald Insight (2022) highlights the need for training or external recruitment to use digital tools, with many organizations lacking digital maturity.
   • Impact on ProcureTech:
     • Generative AI: Without training, users struggle to interpret AI-generated insights (e.g., supplier risk reports), reducing adoption. Salesforce (2024) notes 40% of non-users cite unfamiliarity as a barrier.
     • Agentic AI: Resistance to autonomous systems leads to over-reliance on manual overrides, negating efficiency gains. Tipalti (2025) emphasizes employee adoption as a top ROI metric.
   • Success Impact: High-readiness firms (e.g., Beiersdorf, with global IT standardization) report 20–30% efficiency gains, while low-readiness organizations face stalled projects, as seen in Olive Technologies (2023) case studies.
3. System Integration and Legacy Infrastructure:
   • Challenge: Low digital readiness often involves outdated legacy systems, complicating integration with modern ProcureTech platforms. LinkedIn (2023) notes integration complexity as a major barrier, with seamless data flow critical for success.
   • Impact on ProcureTech:
     • Generative AI: Incompatible systems limit data access, reducing AI’s ability to generate comprehensive insights. Deloitte (2022) highlights cognitive computing’s reliance on unified data sources.
     • Agentic AI: Autonomous workflows break down if systems don’t sync, as SIG notes for legacy procurement tools.
   • Success Impact: Ready organizations (e.g., those with cloud-based platforms like Coupa) achieve scalability and 15–25% cost reductions, while others face prolonged implementation timelines, per Procurement Magazine (2024).
4. Cybersecurity and Compliance:
   • Challenge: Digital readiness includes robust cybersecurity and regulatory compliance, which many organizations lack. Procuredesk (2023) stresses the need for secure systems to protect sensitive procurement data.
   • Impact on ProcureTech:
     • Generative AI: Poor security risks data breaches in AI-generated reports, as Insurance Portal (2025) cites 27% of leaders’ compliance concerns.
     • Agentic AI: Autonomous actions may violate regulations (e.g., GDPR) if compliance isn’t embedded, per CIPS ethical guidelines.
   • Success Impact: High-readiness firms with secure systems report enhanced compliance and 10–20% risk reduction, while others face legal penalties, delaying ProcureTech benefits, per PwC (2024).
5. Strategic Alignment and Organizational Maturity:
   • Challenge: Digital readiness requires aligning ProcureTech with business goals, which low-readiness organizations struggle to achieve. CPOstrategy (2025) underscores the need for a strategic vision to avoid fragmented initiatives.
   • Impact on ProcureTech:
     • Generative AI: Misaligned strategies lead to irrelevant outputs, wasting resources. McKinsey (2023) notes only 20% of procurement data is used due to poor platforms.
     • Agentic AI: Autonomous systems fail to deliver value if not tied to objectives, as Tipalti (2025) highlights for ROI metrics.
   • Success Impact: Mature organizations achieve hard dollar savings and 10–15% maverick spend reduction, while low-readiness firms see inefficiencies, per Spend Matters (2025).

Quantitative Impact Summary

• High Digital Readiness: Organizations with robust taxonomies (40% of large procurement firms), trained staff, and modern systems achieve:
  • 30–50% faster ROI (Deloitte, 2022).
  • 15–25% cost savings (Procurement Magazine, 2024).
  • 20–30% efficiency gains (Olive Technologies, 2023).
  • 10–20% risk reduction (PwC, 2024).
• Low Digital Readiness: Organizations with poor taxonomies (60–80% of firms, especially SMEs), outdated systems, and untrained staff face:
  • 50–70% higher failure rates (Jon Hansen, 2000s).
  • 2–3x longer implementation times (LinkedIn, 2023).
  • 10–20% lower adoption rates (Tipalti, 2025).
  • Increased compliance risks (Insurance Portal, 2025).

Critical Perspective

• Long-Standing Issue: Digital readiness has been a persistent challenge for over 20 years, but its impact has grown with AI-driven ProcureTech’s complexity. SMEs (10–20% taxonomy adoption) are particularly vulnerable, as per Procurement Foundry.
• Overstated Vendor Claims: Vendors like Zip or JAGGAER emphasize ProcureTech benefits but downplay readiness barriers, as Gartner cautions about governance issues.
• Data Gaps: No comprehensive study quantifies readiness impacts across all ProcureTech implementations, but ISM and SIG stress data and skills as critical.
• Regulatory Pressures: Increasing ESG and compliance demands (66% of leaders, KPMG) amplify readiness needs, as Focal Point (2024) notes, making taxonomy and cybersecurity non-negotiable.

Conclusion

Digital readiness has been a problem for organizations since the early 2000s, intensifying over the past decade with the rise of AI-driven ProcureTech. Low readiness—marked by poor taxonomies (60–80% of firms), untrained staff, legacy systems, and weak cybersecurity—leads to inaccurate AI outputs, stalled workflows, compliance risks, and 50–70% higher failure rates in ProcureTech implementation. High-readiness organizations achieve 30–50% faster ROI, 15–25% cost savings, and 20–30% efficiency gains. To improve success, firms should prioritize taxonomy alignment, employee training, and strategic integration.

TODAY’S TAKEAWAY

If taxonomy alignment is so important to data quality, and data quality is crucial to Generative AI and Agentic AI success, why isn’t that a major discussion point right out of the gate before you even look at a technology demo?

Here is one more thing to consider as I begin looking more into the taxonomy situation.

A poor taxonomy undermines Generative AI and Agentic AI across these providers:

• Generative AI:
  • Tealbook, Coupa, Zip: Inaccurate supplier or spend reports due to uncategorized data.
  • Prewave: Incomplete risk or ESG dashboards, missing critical insights.
  • Scoutbee: Irrelevant supplier recommendations, delaying sourcing.
  • TYS, ORO Labs: Non-compliant or flawed analytics, increasing risks.
• Agentic AI:
  • Tealbook, Scoutbee, Coupa: Failed supplier selections due to data gaps, as SAP Ariba notes for AI errors.
  • Prewave: Misprioritized risk mitigation, amplifying costs.
  • TYS: Non-compliant supplier onboarding, risking fraud, per CIPS.
  • ORO Labs, Zip: Disrupted autonomous workflows, requiring manual fixes, as GEP warns of compounding errors.
• Context: With only 20–40% of procurement organizations using aligned taxonomies (10–20% for SMEs), most face AI failure risks, as Deloitte and McKinsey highlight for data governance.

Critical Perspective

• Vendor Emphasis: Tealbook, Scoutbee, Coupa, and Zip explicitly stress taxonomy’s role, but Prewave, TYS, assume it, potentially underestimating readiness barriers. ORO Labs focus on outcomes, downplaying taxonomy setup.
• Adoption Gaps: Large firms (40% adoption) leverage taxonomy-driven AI, but SMEs (10–20%) struggle, as Procurement Foundry notes, limiting ProcureTech success.
• Data Limitations: Tealbook’s 2020 survey is robust but dated; others lack explicit taxonomy data, requiring inference. CIPS and ISM support taxonomy’s importance.
• Vendor Optimism: Zip, Coupa, and ORO Labs emphasize AI benefits, but Gartner warns of governance bottlenecks, with only 20% of procurement data usable without taxonomy.

30

DO YOU WANT THIS . . .

. . . OR THIS FOR PROCURETECH SUCCESS