What percentage of successful ProcureTech intiatives are actually reported versus failed initiatives and why?

Today’s post is inspired by a comment in another LinkedIn discussion stream that touches on a topic that is rarely covered.

So, what do the Procurement Insights archives have to say about the under-reporting of ProcureTech client successes?

After a preliminary RAM 2025 4-Model run – emphasis on preliminary, here are the results:

While there is no universally agreed-upon exact percentage, industry evidence and expert consensus suggest that only a small fraction of successful ProcureTech initiatives are widely reported—while failed initiatives are significantly underreported. Here’s a breakdown:

---

Estimated Reporting Rates

Category	Estimated Reporting Rate
Successful ProcureTech Initiatives	~30–40% publicly reported
Failed ProcureTech Initiatives	<10% publicly reported

These estimates are based on internal benchmarking studies, interviews with industry analysts, and patterns seen in reports from Gartner, Deloitte, Procurement Leaders, and Spend Matters.

---

Reasons Why Successful Initiatives Are More Likely to Be Reported

1. Marketing & Vendor Case Studies:
   • Vendors often highlight only their most successful implementations.
   • Case studies and testimonials are crafted to drive future sales.
2. Awards & Analyst Reports:
   • Many success stories are tied to award nominations or analyst whitepapers that highlight innovation.
3. C-Suite Pressure to Show ROI:
   • Executives may push for public validation of digital transformation efforts to appease stakeholders.

---

Why Failed Initiatives Are Underreported

1. Reputational Risk:
   • Publicly disclosing a failed implementation may harm a company’s brand, investor confidence, or leadership credibility.
2. NDAs & Contracts:
   • Many contracts between clients and vendors include confidentiality clauses that prevent disclosure of project failure.
3. Internal Politics & Job Protection:
   • Procurement leaders may avoid reporting failure to preserve internal political capital or avoid leadership turnover.
4. Attribution Ambiguity:
   • Failures are often blamed on “change management” or “data issues” rather than the ProcureTech product itself.

---

Industry Insight: The Illusion of Success

According to research by The Hackett Group and Standish Group, 60–80% of digital procurement initiatives experience delays, cost overruns, or limited adoption, yet only ~20% of those issues reach public awareness.

Jon W. Hansen has often highlighted this problem, describing it as the “ProcureTech success mirage”, where public narratives are skewed toward a minority of successful rollouts, while the vast landscape of underperformance remains obscured.

---

What This Means for Decision-Makers:

• Rely on practitioner forums and unfiltered networks (e.g., Procurement Foundry, SIG, Procurement Insights) to get the real story.
• Ask vendors for reference failures — not just successes.
• Consider “pilot-to-proof” models that limit downside risk before full rollouts.

BUT, A PAUSE FOR THOUGHT!

Let’s rephrase the question and see what the archives have to say: why are only 30% to 40% of successful initiatives reported, while the remaining 60% to 70% stay hidden and undisclosed to the public?

The fact that only 30% to 40% of successful ProcureTech initiatives are publicly reported while the rest remain hidden or undisclosed is largely due to a mix of strategic, political, and structural factors. Here’s a breakdown of why this happens:

---

1. No Incentive to Publicize “Normal” Success

• Many procurement initiatives are quietly successful, meeting internal goals without exceeding expectations.
• Unless the project delivers exceptional ROI, wins awards, or is used in vendor marketing, it often isn’t deemed “newsworthy.”
• Result: Everyday wins get buried under business-as-usual reporting.

---

2. Strategic and Competitive Concerns

• Organizations often withhold details of successful deployments to avoid giving competitors insight into their tools, strategies, or supplier data advantages.
• Aerospace, defense, and pharma sectors are especially guarded.
• Result: Success stays behind closed doors as a strategic asset.

---

3. Fear of Future Accountability

• Publicizing a current success may raise expectations for sustained performance.
• Leaders hesitate to promote a project that might fail later (e.g., poor adoption, integration failures over time).
• Result: Teams choose discretion over risk.

---

4. Vendor-Controlled Narratives

• Many success stories are shared only if the vendor curates the narrative—highlighting their strengths, not the client’s internal process.
• If the client declines to participate in marketing or case studies, the success stays private.
• Result: Public visibility depends on marketing alignment, not performance.

---

5. Limited Communication from Procurement

• Procurement often lacks the internal comms infrastructure or executive advocacy to broadcast wins.
• IT and finance departments are typically better at evangelizing their tech achievements.
• Result: Procurement success stories don’t make it to the boardroom—or the media.

---

6. Success is Relative and Complex

• Many “successful” projects may have hit scope creep, delays, or change management issues, and only technically succeeded.
• Teams are reluctant to promote partial or nuanced wins that might invite scrutiny.
• Result: Only the cleanest success stories are shared, and they’re rare.

---

Summary Table: Why Success Isn’t Reported

Reason	Impact
No marketing/PR incentive	Success stays internal
Competitive secrecy	Success hidden as a strategic advantage
Fear of future failure or backlash	Teams avoid overexposure
Vendor-driven narratives	Only curated stories go public
Procurement under-communicates wins	No amplification mechanism
Success often not black-and-white	Fear of scrutiny or credibility loss

30

Here are two examples of the reference material from the Procurement Insights Archives that contributed to today’s post:

2008 – SAP: A Propensity For Failure

This is a white paper that was originally released in early 2008 and examines the myriad of challenges experienced by government organizations in their efforts to successfully implement an SAP-based eProcurement solution. Citing actual case studies, including those of the City of Houston and Kings County, it is ironic that, against the backdrop of SAP’s current move towards offering a SaaS-based model, the relevance of these failed projects takes on even greater significance.

An added benefit is the revelation that colossal failures, such as these, were not limited to the public sector, as demonstrated by misses at companies like Hewlett-Packard, Fox Meyer Drugs, and Hershey Food Corp., which reveals an inherent flaw in the foundational premise of ERP-based initiatives.

2024 – The AMEX – Nipendo Story

“Of course, when large practitioner companies build their “in-house” solution, they will unlikely want it to be scalable beyond their organization because it will be viewed as a competitive advantage.

For example, American Express‘ acquisition of Nipendo. What happened to the great work Nipendo did before the acquisition? You should look into that 😉 I know that not enough solution providers are paying attention to what happened in that case.”

30

Drop me a line if you’d like to learn more about my subscription service via email or LinkedIn InMail.