What would Gideon say about his namesake’s late AI coverage?

Today is a follow-up to yesterday’s post What impact did Gartner’s late entry into Procurement and AI have on procurement practitioners and ProcureTech solution providers?

If you haven’t had a chance to read it yet, please take a moment to do so. In the meantime, to create context for today’s post, here is the opening excerpt:

Gartner began discussing artificial intelligence (AI) as a mainstream business technology much later than Jon W. Hansen.

• Jon W. Hansen was publicly referencing and implementing AI concepts in the late 1990s, notably through “advanced self-learning algorithms” in procurement and supply chain applications.
• Gartner, by contrast, did not feature “artificial intelligence” as a major topic until 2016–2017. According to Gartner’s own reporting, the term “artificial intelligence” was not even in the top 100 search terms on gartner.com as of January 2016. By May 2017, it had risen to No. 7, reflecting a surge in industry and client interest. Gartner’s first major public statements predicting AI’s pervasiveness in software and business strategy came in 2017, when they forecast that by 2020, AI would be in almost every new software product.

Here is the closing excerpt from the above article:

Gartner’s delayed coverage of ProcureTech AI exacerbated failure rates by fueling hype-driven adoption, poor vendor selection, and unaddressed data readiness gaps. Earlier, strategic guidance (pre-2020) could have halved failure rates, saved $15–25 billion annually, and accelerated ROI by 6–12 months. To mitigate future risks, firms must prioritize taxonomy alignment, change management, and vendor due diligence—lessons Gartner now emphasizes as the AI whirlwind enters the “Trough of Disillusionment.”

So, here is the question that must be asked:

Would Gideon Gartner have “clued in” to AI’s impact on procurement and the supply chain earlier than his namesake company did in 2016?

Here is what my RAM 2025 4-Model assessment concluded (followed by a detailed explanation):

Gideon Gartner’s foundational strength was not waiting for market consensus. If he were leading today, he likely would have used AI to disrupt the very model that Gartner Inc. now cautiously reinforces.

Yes—it is highly likely that Gideon Gartner, the founder, would have recognized the impact of AI on procurement and supply chains earlier than his namesake company did in 2016. Here’s why:

---

1. Gideon Gartner’s Personal Track Record: Visionary Pattern Recognition

• Known for foresight: Gideon Gartner had a long history of spotting major technology shifts well before they went mainstream.
• 1979–1990s: He anticipated the strategic importance of enterprise IT during the mainframe-to-client-server transition.
• Founded multiple analyst firms: Including Gartner Inc. and later Giga Information Group, both known for challenging incumbents and early pattern detection.
• Valued ground truth: Unlike modern analyst firms that rely heavily on vendor briefings, Gideon built credibility by tapping real users and technical leads, similar to the approach used in Strand Commonality Theory.

He was deeply skeptical of hype cycles without practical grounding—a trait that would have pushed him to explore AI’s operational implications much earlier.

---

2. Gartner Inc. (Post-Gideon) Lagged in Recognizing AI’s Real Procurement Impact

• 2016: Gartner formally began discussing AI in procurement—but largely in conceptual or exploratory terms.
• Too vendor-centric: Their early AI commentary leaned on vendor roadmaps (Coupa, SAP, Oracle) rather than early-stage practitioner signals.
• Missed early adopters: Companies experimenting with AI in sourcing, risk sensing, and taxonomy (like Novartis or early public sector pilots) were overlooked.

Contrast that with Jon Hansen’s Strand Commonality Theory, which picked up on weak signals (like AI’s potential to reduce human bias or automate spend classification) years earlier.

---

3. Gideon Gartner’s Likely Approach to AI in Procurement

Trait	How Gideon Would Have Responded
Pattern Disruption Bias	He would have seen AI as a disruption to legacy taxonomy, decision speed, and vendor dependency.
Ground-Level Feedback Loop	He would have validated AI’s impact by talking directly to procurement leaders and practitioners, not just tech vendors.
Timing Acuity	Would have followed strand signals—not waited for AI to become mainstream.
Skepticism Toward Institutional Inertia	Likely to have challenged his own firm’s slow uptake and risk aversion post-IPO.

---

Summary: Gideon Gartner vs. Gartner Inc.

Dimension	Gideon Gartner	Gartner Inc. (post-2000s)
Vision	Bold, anticipatory	Cautious, consensus-based
Source of Insight	Field practitioners	Vendor briefings & trends
AI in Procurement Timing	Likely pre-2010	2016 and beyond
Risk Attitude	Challenged status quo	Preserved status quo

TODAY’S TAKEAWAY

Boardroom and C-Suite leaders must take responsibility for their role in the high rate of initiative failure and adopt the spirit and mindset of Gideon Gartner if they want to begin to realize technology’s potential for their organizations’ procurement and supply chain performance.

30