Why are traditional analyst KPI scores so much lower than the Hansen Fit Score?

EDITOR’S NOTE: Here is the article that inspired today’s post: How does the Hansen Fit Score translate into measurable KPI’s, e.g., ROI, cost reduction, FTE, overall profit increase, etc.

Here are the improved KPIs when practitioners use the Hansen Fit Score to select their ProcureTech solution providers and partners. The companies highlighted in the graph are as follows: Duke Energy, Novartis, Lundbeck, AstraZeneca, Dollar Tree, LCBO, Peak Utilities, and Walmart.

Key Insights:

• Across all practitioners, Hansen Fit Score projections are 15–24% higher than traditional analyst scores.
• Organizations like Novartis, AstraZeneca, and Peak Utilities show a particularly strong alignment with Hansen’s methodology, reflecting high projected KPI outcomes.
• Traditional analyst models tend to focus more on static metrics like vendor revenue, product features, or past case studies—factors that do not fully capture strategic alignment, agent behavior, and scenario modeling.
• In contrast, the Hansen Fit Score integrates forward-looking dynamics, stakeholder alignment, and strand commonality—producing KPI projections that are more predictive and execution-aligned.

RAM 2025 6-MODEL ASSESSMENT (LEVELS 1 TO 3)

MODEL 1

There are several key reasons why traditional analyst frameworks (e.g., Gartner, Spend Matters, IDC, Forrester, etc.) tend to produce lower KPI outcome scores than those predicted or supported by the Hansen Fit Score (HFS).

---

Why Traditional Analyst KPI Scores Are Lower Than HFS Scores

---

Quantitative KPI Translation Example (Based on Article Insights)

---

Why HFS Drives Higher Scores

• It integrates system complexity (e.g., feedback loops, organizational resistance, communication barriers).
• It models change over time, not just as-is snapshots.
• It fuses qualitative inputs (e.g., leadership vision) with quantifiable operational realities.

MODEL 2

Conclusion

Traditional analyst KPI scores are lower than the Hansen Fit Score because they rely on generic benchmarks, tech-centric biases, static analysis, and human oversight, missing the contextual, process-first, predictive, and human-centric strengths of HFS. This results in reduced efficiency (10–15% less), cost savings (5–10% less), and collaboration (10–20% less), with HFS delivering 2x–5x ROI and up to 87% FTE reduction where traditional scores cap at 200–500% ROI. However, HFS’s niche focus and adoption challenges temper its edge, suggesting the gap may narrow with broader validation or hybrid approaches.

MODEL 3

1. Practitioner-Centric vs. Theoretical Models

• Hansen Fit Score (HFS): Built on practitioner-centric design, the HFS directly incorporates real-world operational needs, cross-functional alignment, and continuous feedback from actual users. This ensures that KPIs reflect what truly drives value and adoption in procurement and supply chain transformation.
• Traditional Analyst KPIs: Often rely on generalized, retrospective, or theoretical frameworks. These models focus on standardized metrics that may not capture the nuances of organizational readiness, practitioner engagement, or the adaptability required for modern digital transformation.

2. Depth of Alignment and Integration

• HFS: Measures not just outcomes but the degree of alignment between technology, people, and processes. It evaluates readiness, integration capability, and the ability to adapt to change, all of which are critical for sustained success and high KPI performance.
• Traditional KPIs: Tend to focus on surface-level metrics (e.g., cost savings, cycle time) without assessing whether the underlying systems and teams are truly integrated and aligned. This limits their predictive power and often results in lower scores when compared with the more holistic HFS.

3. Evidence-Based, Adaptive Scoring

• HFS: Uses data-driven benchmarks, practitioner fit trials, and ongoing validation to refine its scoring. This adaptive approach ensures KPIs remain relevant and accurately reflect current and future performance potential.
• Traditional KPIs: Are frequently static, compliance-driven, or based on legacy benchmarks. They may not adjust to new technologies, changing business models, or evolving practitioner needs, leading to underperformance in dynamic environments.

4. Transparency and Methodological Rigor

• HFS: Explicitly defines scoring dimensions, calculation rubrics, and validation methodologies. This transparency builds trust and ensures that the KPIs are both auditable and actionable.
• Traditional KPIs: Often lack transparency in how scores are calculated, with limited visibility into weighting, benchmarking, or the rationale behind chosen metrics. This can result in lower confidence and less actionable insights.

5. Predictive Foresight and Operational Precision

• HFS: Emphasizes predictive foresight—anticipating risks, opportunities, and the impact of change. It drives operational precision by aligning KPIs with strategic objectives and practitioner realities, leading to higher ROI, cost reduction, FTE efficiency, and profit improvement.
• Traditional KPIs: Are typically backward-looking, measuring past performance rather than enabling proactive, data-driven decision-making. This limits their ability to drive transformation and results in lower overall scores.

Comparative Table: Hansen Fit Score vs. Traditional Analyst KPIs

Key Takeaway

Traditional analyst KPI scores are lower because their models are less aligned with real-world practitioner needs, less adaptive to organizational change, and less transparent in methodology. The Hansen Fit Score, by contrast, integrates practitioner feedback, adaptive benchmarking, and strategic alignment, resulting in significantly higher KPI outcomes and a more accurate reflection of procurement transformation success.

MODEL 4

Key Differences: Traditional KPIs vs. Hansen Fit Scores

Conclusions

– **Traditional analyst KPIs** score lower because they are designed to measure past, transactional, and financial outcomes. They do not account for organizational readiness, integration complexity, cross-functional alignment, or taxonomy-related friction.

– **The Hansen Fit Score** produces higher scores because it evaluates the conditions necessary for future procurement success, including technology adoption readiness and systemic reliability, which are not reflected in traditional KPIs.

– The scoring discrepancy isn’t merely methodological—it reflects fundamentally different perspectives on what constitutes procurement success. Traditional KPIs focus on departmental efficiency and cost control, while the Hansen approach values organizational capabilities that enable transformation.

– Organizations that focus exclusively on traditional KPIs may optimize for short-term metrics at the expense of building the capabilities needed for long-term procurement excellence and technology adoption.

– As procurement evolves toward technology-enabled, cross-functional transformation, measurement frameworks like the Hansen Fit Score provide a more accurate and actionable leading indicator of success, explaining the observed discrepancy in scoring.

MODEL 5

Specific Performance Advantages

The Hansen approach delivers superior results because it addresses the root causes of ProcureTech implementation failures that traditional analysts often overlook. Organizations with high HFS typically achieve 2x–5x ROI on ProcureTech investments within the first 1–2 years, compared to much lower returns predicted by traditional analyst models.

The article suggests that the predictive foresight and operational precision enabled by the Hansen Model make it a robust alternative to legacy evaluation frameworks, explaining why its scores translate to significantly better real-world KPI performance than traditional analyst predictions.

MODEL 6

1. The article implies that the Hansen Fit Score’s methodology inherently leads to better outcomes and thus higher KPI realization, as it drives:
   • Predictive Foresight: The model’s ability to anticipate and plan for future scenarios, leading to more proactive and successful initiatives.
   • Operational Precision: The model’s focus is on detailed operational alignment and optimization.
   • Practitioner-Centric Design: Ensuring solutions truly match real-world needs, leading to higher adoption and fewer costly missteps.
   • Cross-Functional Alignment: Reducing silos for better collaboration and faster decision-making.
   • Evidence-Based Implementation: Using data-driven benchmarks for realistic targets and progress tracking.
   • Continuous Improvement: Embedding feedback loops to refine processes and sustain gains.

Essentially, the article posits that while traditional frameworks like Gartner and IDC provide useful assessments, the Hansen Fit Score’s specific focus on organizational alignment, readiness, and integration capability through its unique dimensions (Metaprise, Agent-Based, Strand Commonality) leads to a more precise fit and, consequently, a much higher realization of tangible business value across key procurement KPIs.

TODAY’S TAKEAWAY

This analysis clarifies why traditional analyst KPIs systematically produce lower scores than the Hansen Fit Score: the former are limited in scope, time horizon, and predictive power, while the latter incorporates a richer, forward-looking assessment of procurement’s potential for success in a modern, technology-enabled environment. Organizations seeking to transform their procurement function should consider both measurement approaches to gain a complete picture of current performance and future potential.

30