Both models ultimately point toward the same destination: enterprises that can dynamically adapt and coordinate across traditional boundaries. Hansen’s strand commonality provides the analytical foundation for identifying these opportunities, while his Metaprise model offers the human-AI coordination framework. The Gartner Business-Outcome-Aligned model represents the organizational structure needed to operationalize these concepts at enterprise scale.
The convergence suggests that successful digital transformation requires both Hansen’s deep process analysis capabilities and Gartner’s architectural framework for organizing and delivering technology solutions.
The above Gartner graphic illustrates the evolution of enterprise architecture operating models, showing three distinct approaches to IT organization and delivery. Here’s how it relates to Hansen’s strand commonality and Agent-based Metaprise model:
Gartner Graphic Analysis
The graphic presents three enterprise architecture models:
Decentralized IT: Separate business units operate independently with their own Plan-Build-Run cycles
Centralized IT: Unified IT organization serving multiple business units through shared Plan-Build-Run functions
Business-Outcome-Aligned IT: Cross-functional product lines built on a shared digital foundation, representing the emerging model
Similarities to Hansen’s Models
Pattern Recognition Across Structures Both Hansen’s strand commonality research and the Gartner model recognize that organizations contain underlying patterns and commonalities that can be leveraged for optimization. Hansen’s research identified “strands” or common sequences across seemingly unrelated government processes, while Gartner’s Business-Outcome-Aligned model identifies shared digital foundations that can support multiple product lines.
Agent-Based Coordination The Gartner model’s emphasis on cross-functional product lines aligns with Hansen’s Agent-based Metaprise concept, which accounts for “both human and digital agents interacting across organizational, technological, and behavioral boundaries.” Both models recognize that modern enterprises require coordination mechanisms that transcend traditional organizational silos.
Evolution from Rigid to Adaptive Systems Hansen’s Metaprise model addresses “the persistent gaps between SOA-based infrastructure and modern Intake and Orchestration systems,” similar to how Gartner shows evolution from rigid centralized/decentralized models toward more adaptive, outcome-aligned structures.
Key Differences
Scope and Focus
Gartner: Focuses on IT organizational structures and technology delivery models.
Hansen: Concentrates on identifying hidden process commonalities and human-AI interaction patterns, particularly in procurement and supply chain contexts
Implementation Approach
Gartner: Presents architectural frameworks for enterprise-wide IT transformation.
Hansen: Emphasizes “similarity heuristics and iterative methodologies” as foundational elements for AI-driven process optimization.
Temporal Perspective
Gartner: Shows current and emerging organizational models.
Hansen: Builds on research from the late 1990s, viewing current AI developments as evolutionary rather than revolutionary.
Worth Repeating
Both models ultimately point toward the same destination: enterprises that can dynamically adapt and coordinate across traditional boundaries. Hansen’s strand commonality provides the analytical foundation for identifying these opportunities, while his Metaprise model offers the human-AI coordination framework. The Gartner Business-Outcome-Aligned model represents the organizational structure needed to operationalize these concepts at enterprise scale.
The convergence suggests that successful digital transformation requires both Hansen’s deep process analysis capabilities and Gartner’s architectural framework for organizing and delivering technology solutions.
MORE QUESTIONS TO ASK:
How does the Gartner graphic illustrate similarities with Hansen’s strand commonality and agent-based models?
What key differences between Gartner’s framework and Hansen’s agent-based Metaprise are highlighted in the graphic?
In what ways does the Gartner model complement or contrast with Hansen’s focus on process standardization and agents?
Why might Gartner’s approach emphasize different organizational layers compared to Hansen’s agent-centric perspective?
How can insights from the Gartner graphic deepen my understanding of Hansen’s models for process convergence?
30
AND NOW, A WARNING!
We are entering an era of acquisitions in which bigger and well-funded entities will go to the small innovator marketplace – or buy one like ORO Labs did with ProcureTech 100, to shop and cherry-pick the best solutions that they believe they can finally combine into a coherent one-size-takes-care-of-all package.
However, these visions of seamless unity are not new, and Intake & Orchestration alone will not bring everything together in one, beautiful noise. WATCH THE FOLLOWING VIDEO.
Procurement Insights
Is Gartner’s New Enterprise Architecture A Revolution Or An Evolution?
Posted on June 11, 2025
0
Strategic Convergence
Both models ultimately point toward the same destination: enterprises that can dynamically adapt and coordinate across traditional boundaries. Hansen’s strand commonality provides the analytical foundation for identifying these opportunities, while his Metaprise model offers the human-AI coordination framework. The Gartner Business-Outcome-Aligned model represents the organizational structure needed to operationalize these concepts at enterprise scale.
The convergence suggests that successful digital transformation requires both Hansen’s deep process analysis capabilities and Gartner’s architectural framework for organizing and delivering technology solutions.
The above Gartner graphic illustrates the evolution of enterprise architecture operating models, showing three distinct approaches to IT organization and delivery. Here’s how it relates to Hansen’s strand commonality and Agent-based Metaprise model:
Gartner Graphic Analysis
The graphic presents three enterprise architecture models:
Similarities to Hansen’s Models
Pattern Recognition Across Structures
Both Hansen’s strand commonality research and the Gartner model recognize that organizations contain underlying patterns and commonalities that can be leveraged for optimization. Hansen’s research identified “strands” or common sequences across seemingly unrelated government processes, while Gartner’s Business-Outcome-Aligned model identifies shared digital foundations that can support multiple product lines.
Agent-Based Coordination
The Gartner model’s emphasis on cross-functional product lines aligns with Hansen’s Agent-based Metaprise concept, which accounts for “both human and digital agents interacting across organizational, technological, and behavioral boundaries.” Both models recognize that modern enterprises require coordination mechanisms that transcend traditional organizational silos.
Evolution from Rigid to Adaptive Systems
Hansen’s Metaprise model addresses “the persistent gaps between SOA-based infrastructure and modern Intake and Orchestration systems,” similar to how Gartner shows evolution from rigid centralized/decentralized models toward more adaptive, outcome-aligned structures.
Key Differences
Scope and Focus
Implementation Approach
Temporal Perspective
Worth Repeating
Both models ultimately point toward the same destination: enterprises that can dynamically adapt and coordinate across traditional boundaries. Hansen’s strand commonality provides the analytical foundation for identifying these opportunities, while his Metaprise model offers the human-AI coordination framework. The Gartner Business-Outcome-Aligned model represents the organizational structure needed to operationalize these concepts at enterprise scale.
The convergence suggests that successful digital transformation requires both Hansen’s deep process analysis capabilities and Gartner’s architectural framework for organizing and delivering technology solutions.
MORE QUESTIONS TO ASK:
30
AND NOW, A WARNING!
We are entering an era of acquisitions in which bigger and well-funded entities will go to the small innovator marketplace – or buy one like ORO Labs did with ProcureTech 100, to shop and cherry-pick the best solutions that they believe they can finally combine into a coherent one-size-takes-care-of-all package.
However, these visions of seamless unity are not new, and Intake & Orchestration alone will not bring everything together in one, beautiful noise. WATCH THE FOLLOWING VIDEO.
Share this:
Related