To Achieve ProcureTech Success Do You Know Where To TAP?

FIRST THE PARABLE

The Story: The Expert and the Hammer

A massive ocean-going ship was experiencing severe engine trouble. The crew and the company called in several teams of engineers, each equipped with the latest diagnostic tools, schematics, and technology. For days, they worked tirelessly—testing, recalibrating, checking everything—but they couldn’t fix the problem.

Finally, in desperation, the company contacted a retired, old engineer who had worked on these types of engines for decades.

He arrived with just a small bag of tools. After listening carefully to the engine, walking around it a few times, and inspecting a few key areas, he tapped a specific spot on the engine gently with a small hammer.

The engine roared back to life.

A week later, the company received his invoice:

Invoice Total: $10,000

• Tapping with hammer: $1
• Knowing where to tap: $9,999

---

Moral of the Story

• Experience and insight are often more valuable than raw tools or technology.
• It’s not about how much work you do—it’s about knowing exactly what to do and why.
• It reflects a value-based pricing philosophy rather than time-based or tool-based pricing.

NOW THE FACTS (PART A)

Responsibility for ProcureTech Implementation Success (Most to Least)

Hierarchy Level	Estimated Responsibility (%)	Why
Middle Management	40%	Directly manages deployment, change management, and cross-team alignment.
Frontline Procurement	30%	Executes the solution daily; their adoption, feedback, and usage determine success.
C-Suite Executives	20%	Provides strategic direction and budget approval but less involved in execution.
Board Room	10%	Minimal involvement; oversight only, with limited execution influence.

Insight: ProcureTech success lives and dies in the middle and bottom of the org chart. Strategic support helps, but operational ownership and usability drive real-world outcomes.

---

2. Most Practical Business Knowledge & Understanding of Frontline Needs (Most to Least)

Hierarchy Level	Estimated Practical Knowledge (%)	Why
Frontline Procurement	50%	Deepest understanding of day-to-day pain points, supplier issues, system gaps.
Middle Management	30%	Bridges leadership expectations with frontline realities; owns KPIs.
C-Suite Executives	15%	Has macro understanding, but often disconnected from tool-specific challenges.
Board Room	5%	Strategic oversight only; too far removed from operational detail.

Insight: The closer to the frontlines, the clearer the view of practical gaps, operational constraints, and what success really looks like on the ground.

NOW THE FACTS (PART B)

When it comes to trusting Gartner’s ProcureTech recommendations, the level of trust typically follows this descending order within most organizations:

---

Trust in Gartner – Organizational Hierarchy (Most to Least)

Level	Trust Level	Why
1. Board Room	✅ High	Relies on analyst-brand credibility for investment justification and vendor validation.
2. C-Suite Executives	✅ High–Moderate	Uses Gartner for strategic tech roadmaps, risk mitigation, and cross-functional buy-in.
3. Middle Management	⚠️ Moderate	Often respects Gartner’s macro views but may question fit for operational needs.
4. Frontline Procurement	❌ Low–Skeptical	Typically sees gaps between Gartner’s vendor positioning and field-level realities.

---

Why This Pattern Exists

• Gartner appeals strongly to executive and investor audiences, positioning itself as a strategic advisor.
• Frontline professionals—who live with implementation outcomes—often experience discrepancies between Gartner’s quadrant rankings and actual solution usability, integration, or support.
• Middle management walks the line: tasked with delivery but pressured to align with “best practice” endorsements.

---

Real-World Consequence

• Many CPOs and CIOs cite Gartner to justify shortlist decisions, even when internal teams express concerns about vendor suitability.
• This gap often leads to “boardroom alignment but field-level misalignment”, which contributes to high failure rates in ProcureTech implementations.

Based on industry dynamics and organizational behavior, Gartner’s closest and most personal relationships by organizational hierarchy—from most to least—can be estimated as follows:

---

Estimated Relationship Proximity with Gartner by Hierarchy

Hierarchy Group	Estimated Closeness (%)	Rationale
C-Suite Executives	45–50%	Gartner’s account teams and events (e.g., Gartner Symposium) target CIOs, CPOs, CFOs, and CMOs as decision-makers.
Board Room Members	20–25%	Board-level visibility often comes via reports used in strategic planning; direct relationships are fewer but influential.
Middle Management	15–20%	Often briefed second-hand via C-suite directives; some relationships during tool selection or workshops.
Frontline Procurement	5–10%	Minimal direct engagement; typically consume Gartner content passed down the chain, not built on personal contact.

---

Notes:

• Gartner’s sales and client engagement models prioritize executives with budget and authority.
• The lower down the org chart, the less personal the relationship tends to be — more content consumption, less collaboration.
• Frontline practitioners may use Gartner indirectly (e.g., via MQs or peer reviews), but are rarely consulted directly by Gartner account teams or analysts.

Here’s a clear comparison table showing the contrast between who Gartner engages most and who actually drives ProcureTech success within an organization:

---

Comparison Table: Gartner Engagement vs. Implementation Success Responsibility

Hierarchy Level	Gartner Engagement (Most → Least)	Implementation Success Responsibility (Most → Least)
C-Suite Executives	🟩 1st – ~50%	🟨 3rd – ~20%
Board Room	🟨 2nd – ~25%	🟥 4th – ~10%
Middle Management	🟧 3rd – ~20%	🟩 1st – ~40%
Frontline Procurement	🟥 4th – ~5%	🟧 2nd – ~30%

---

Interpretation:

• Gartner’s strongest ties are with those least involved in day-to-day success (C-Suite and Board).
• ProcureTech success, however, relies most on Middle Management and Frontline Procurement, who Gartner engages least.
• This misalignment is a known root cause of many failed or underperforming ProcureTech implementations.

WHAT IS YOUR TAKEAWAY?

I know what mine is: It’s time to flip the iceberg.

30

BONUS COVERAGE

The percentage of Gartner analysts with frontline or middle management experience specifically in procurement and supply chain is estimated to be low—likely in the range of 10–15%. Here’s the breakdown:

---

📉 Estimated Breakdown of Gartner Analyst Backgrounds

Background Type	Estimated % of Analysts	Notes
Academic or Research-Oriented	40–50%	Focused on frameworks, trend reporting, and technology landscapes.
Vendor or Consulting Experience	30–35%	Often from tech firms, SaaS vendors, or consulting (e.g., Deloitte, IBM).
Frontline or Operational Procurement Roles	5–10%	Few have directly managed sourcing events, supplier disputes, or logistics.
Middle Management in Supply Chain/Procurement	5–10%	Limited practical, mid-level implementation experience.

---

Implication for Practitioners

• Gartner guidance is more theoretical or vendor-aligned than based on lived, tactical execution experience.
• This gap can contribute to strategic blind spots when it comes to rollout friction, user adoption, or legacy system limitations.
• Many procurement professionals therefore use Gartner for macro insights, but rely on peers, niche experts, or communities.

The following graphic shows the highest estimated percentage of frontline procurement experience among all analyst firms, demonstrating strong practical expertise.