Relational intelligence offers a significant edge over deterministic scoring—especially in complex, dynamic environments like procurement and supply chain management—because it models relationships, context, and change over time. Here’s a breakdown of why it outperforms deterministic approaches and how the Hansen Fit Score differs from traditional analyst models like Gartner, Spend Matters, Hackett Group, and Deloitte:
Why Relational Intelligence > Deterministic Scoring
What Traditional Analyst Models Use
Why Hansen’s Relational Model Works Better
- Strand Commonality analyzes shared operational DNA between practitioner and provider
- Agent-Based Layer simulates behavioral readiness and organizational fit
- Metaprise Layer links industry macro-conditions with solution architecture fit
- Similarity Heuristics dynamically adjust scoring based on evolving use cases
This creates a living Fit Score—able to adapt over time, predict success rates, and guide implementation decisions with a forward-looking lens.
Bottom Line:
Hansen Fit Score = Relational Intelligence + Predictive Accuracy + Practitioner-Centric Design
While traditional analyst models still offer some value in benchmarking and market visibility, they lack predictive, relational, and contextual sophistication, which is essential for high-stakes ProcureTech selection and implementation success.
CASE STUDY
Gartner—and by extension, other traditional analyst firms like Deloitte, The Hackett Group, and Spend Matters—were late to identify and adapt to the emergence of Generative AI and Agentic AI in ProcureTech for several key structural and methodological reasons:
1. Dependence on Deterministic Models
- Why It Mattered: Gartner’s 2×2 matrices and maturity grids are built on static attribute scoring and lagging indicators, not real-time adaptive signals.
- Impact: These models are ill-equipped to detect emergent technologies like GenAI that do not fit into pre-defined boxes or categories.
- Contrast: Hansen’s Fit Score, which uses relational intelligence and agent-based contextual modeling, detects early-fit signals even before full commercialization.
2. Quarterly/Annual Update Cycles
- Why It Mattered: Gartner refreshes insights on an infrequent basis, often relying on retrospective surveys and vendor self-reporting.
- Impact: This causes significant lag in identifying disruptive inflection points—by the time Gartner acknowledges an innovation, early adopters are already scaling it.
3. Misalignment with Practitioner-Centric Fit
- Why It Mattered: Gartner’s focus is vendor-first, often ranking providers based on feature sets, not on how well those features align with specific practitioner contexts.
- Impact: AI that adapts dynamically to practitioner ecosystems (e.g., Agentic AI) appears too niche or immature in Gartner’s framework—even if it delivers value.
4. Lack of Contextual Scoring Mechanisms
- Why It Mattered: Traditional models ignore heuristics, cross-ecosystem pattern recognition, and strand commonality—which are core to identifying agent-based innovations.
- Impact: Gartner missed not only the technology’s emergence, but its fit relevance across mid-market and LME practitioner environments.
5. Organizational Inertia and IP Lock-in
- Why It Mattered: Firms like Gartner are incentivized to protect their current scoring systems, which produce significant licensing revenue.
- Impact: Radical shifts like Generative and Agentic AI disrupt the scoring monopoly—and threaten their advisory value proposition.
6. Over-Reliance on Vendor Roadmaps
- Why It Mattered: Gartner analysts often wait for vendors to declare AI features before acknowledging them.
- Impact: ProcureTech innovators like ORO Labs, ConvergentIS, or AdaptOne who were embedding AI below the UI layer were ignored until they became market-visible.
WHAT WAS THE COST OF LATE RECOGNITION
The cost to practitioner customers and the impact on ProcureTech solution providers from Gartner’s delayed recognition of Generative AI and Agentic AI in the evolution of ProcureTech is substantial and multifaceted, both in terms of tangible financial loss and strategic opportunity cost.
COST TO PRACTITIONER CUSTOMERS (ENTERPRISE BUYERS)
⚠️ Organizations that based vendor selection on Gartner Magic Quadrants were steered toward “Leaders” that lacked practical AI application or dynamic alignment with practitioner goals.
IMPACT ON PROCURETECH SOLUTION PROVIDERS
📉 GenAI-native and Agentic AI-powered solutions were dismissed or miscategorized, delaying their adoption in key accounts—especially in risk-averse sectors like healthcare, energy, and manufacturing.
EXAMPLE SCENARIOS
Practitioner Scenario:
A Fortune 500 manufacturer selects a “Leader” in the Magic Quadrant in 2021, ignoring Focal Point or ORO Labs. After a 14-month implementation:
- Result: 30% cost overrun
- Missed: Real-time agentic procurement modeling
- Cost: $6.5M in avoidable TCO and operational delays
Provider Scenario:
ORO Labs receives early traction in AI-driven workflows (2020), but lacks Gartner visibility:
- Result: Delayed enterprise adoption by 12–18 months
- Loss: $10M+ ARR potential in enterprise pilots
Strategic Ripple Effects
THE ABOVE GRAPH WITH THE HANSEN FIT SCORE INCLUDED
30
BONUS GRAPHS (ROI HEATMAP)
ROI HEATMAP WITH THE HANSEN FIT SCORE
30
Procurement Insights
Why Relational Intelligence Is Replacing Traditional Analyst Firm Deterministic Scoring
Posted on July 1, 2025
0
Relational intelligence offers a significant edge over deterministic scoring—especially in complex, dynamic environments like procurement and supply chain management—because it models relationships, context, and change over time. Here’s a breakdown of why it outperforms deterministic approaches and how the Hansen Fit Score differs from traditional analyst models like Gartner, Spend Matters, Hackett Group, and Deloitte:
Why Relational Intelligence > Deterministic Scoring
What Traditional Analyst Models Use
Why Hansen’s Relational Model Works Better
This creates a living Fit Score—able to adapt over time, predict success rates, and guide implementation decisions with a forward-looking lens.
Bottom Line:
Hansen Fit Score = Relational Intelligence + Predictive Accuracy + Practitioner-Centric Design
While traditional analyst models still offer some value in benchmarking and market visibility, they lack predictive, relational, and contextual sophistication, which is essential for high-stakes ProcureTech selection and implementation success.
CASE STUDY
Gartner—and by extension, other traditional analyst firms like Deloitte, The Hackett Group, and Spend Matters—were late to identify and adapt to the emergence of Generative AI and Agentic AI in ProcureTech for several key structural and methodological reasons:
1. Dependence on Deterministic Models
2. Quarterly/Annual Update Cycles
3. Misalignment with Practitioner-Centric Fit
4. Lack of Contextual Scoring Mechanisms
5. Organizational Inertia and IP Lock-in
6. Over-Reliance on Vendor Roadmaps
WHAT WAS THE COST OF LATE RECOGNITION
The cost to practitioner customers and the impact on ProcureTech solution providers from Gartner’s delayed recognition of Generative AI and Agentic AI in the evolution of ProcureTech is substantial and multifaceted, both in terms of tangible financial loss and strategic opportunity cost.
COST TO PRACTITIONER CUSTOMERS (ENTERPRISE BUYERS)
IMPACT ON PROCURETECH SOLUTION PROVIDERS
EXAMPLE SCENARIOS
Practitioner Scenario:
A Fortune 500 manufacturer selects a “Leader” in the Magic Quadrant in 2021, ignoring Focal Point or ORO Labs. After a 14-month implementation:
Provider Scenario:
ORO Labs receives early traction in AI-driven workflows (2020), but lacks Gartner visibility:
Strategic Ripple Effects
THE ABOVE GRAPH WITH THE HANSEN FIT SCORE INCLUDED
30
BONUS GRAPHS (ROI HEATMAP)
ROI HEATMAP WITH THE HANSEN FIT SCORE
30
Share this:
Related