How Much Do You Believe That Success Starts At The Top? A Hansen Fit Score Real World Exercise.

Here is an excerpt from a post I wrote a couple of years ago that is worth revisiting in 2025:

“The critical play is not the tech but the expertise behind the tech – the market expertise and experience to leverage tech to solve a problem. eVA, Virginia’s eProcurement Program, knew this back in 2007 when the tech wasn’t as robust as it is today – https://bit.ly/3SUWxml

Instead of company names, we should know the names of the people behind each one. Who are they, what is their experience and expertise, and do they have “the team” that can work with our team to make it happen?”

The underlying thought is that it’s people who make technology work better, not technology making people work better.

***BUT DOES IT MATTER?***

While people-needing-people provides a warm and fuzzy everybodys’-in-it-together sentiment, does it really matter if the individuals at the top of their respective companies are aligned in their thinking and approach to business?

NOTE: The following is a RAM 2025 Model 3, Level 3 assessment that will serve as a starting point for discussion. What this means is that I still have 5 more Models and 4 more Levels to run through RAM 2025, which could notably alter the scores.

Importance of Leadership Alignment

Leadership alignment between a practitioner client and a ProcureTech solution provider is one of the most critical factors for successful implementation outcomes. When executive teams share a unified vision, communicate priorities clearly, and collaborate effectively, organizations are far more likely to achieve their project goals and realize the value of their technology investments.

Quantitative Insights

Why Alignment Drives Better Outcomes

1. Clarity of Vision and Goals

• Aligned leaders set a clear direction, ensuring everyone works toward shared objectives.
• Misalignment leads to mixed messages, confusion, and wasted effort.

2. Faster, Better Decision-Making

• Unified leadership enables rapid, confident decisions and removes bottlenecks.
• Misaligned teams experience stalled decision-making and resource conflicts.

3. Resource Optimization

• Alignment ensures resources are channeled toward the highest-impact initiatives.
• Competing agendas in misaligned teams dilute focus and reduce efficiency.

4. Stronger Stakeholder Buy-In

• When leaders present a united front, it builds trust and accelerates user adoption.
• Misalignment breeds skepticism, resistance, and disengagement from teams.

5. Sustained Change and Agility

• Aligned leadership fosters a culture of agility and continuous improvement, crucial for digital transformation.
• Misalignment leads to fragmented change efforts and undermines long-term success.

Summary Table: Leadership Alignment vs. Misalignment

Conclusion

The likelihood that strong leadership alignment between a practitioner client and ProcureTech solution provider will consistently produce better implementation outcomes is approximately 75%—meaning it is a decisive factor for success. Alignment at the top sets the tone for the entire project, directly impacting clarity, speed, resource use, and stakeholder engagement. Organizations that prioritize executive alignment dramatically increase their chances of delivering successful, sustainable ProcureTech transformations.

A REAL-WORLD ASSESSMENT

Based on the prior leadership alignment analysis, here are the estimated success percentages for each leader’s collaboration with Scott Hutton of Biodesix, ranked from greatest to least likelihood of a successful ProcureTech initiative. The percentage reflects the relative likelihood of a highly successful outcome, driven by leadership and cultural alignment.

Summary Table (PRELIMINARY)

Rank	Leader & Company	Alignment Potential	Key Strengths for Initiative Success
1	Shaun Syvertsen (ConvergentIS)	Highest	Operational excellence, transformation, regulated industries
2	John Davis (AdaptOne)	Very Strong	Process optimization, collaboration, customer-centric transformation
3	Anders Lillevik (Focal Point)	Strong	Operational excellence, transformation, and regulated industries
4	Rujul Zaparde (ZIP)	Solid	Innovation, rapid scaling, team empowerment
5	Dr. Lisa Smith (Prewave)	Solid	Data-driven, collaborative, innovation-focused
6	Yurii Kapkov (ApolloRise)	Solid	Visionary, data-driven, digital transformation
7	Sudhir Bhojwani (ORO Labs)	Solid	Human-centric, agile, operational scaling
8	Harald Nitschinger (Prewave)	Solid	Pragmatic, innovative, data-driven

Key Takeaways

• Shaun Syvertsen (ConvergentIS) stands out as the top partner for a successful ProcureTech initiative with Biodesix, followed closely by John Davis (AdaptOne).
• All assessed leaders show strong potential for collaboration with Scott Hutton, with differences in ranking primarily reflecting the depth of operational, cultural, and strategic alignment.
• Shared values in transparency, empowerment, and data-driven transformation are common threads among the most promising partnerships.

Success Percentage Table

Rank	Leader & Company	Estimated Success Percentage (%)
1	Shaun Syvertsen (ConvergentIS)	90
2	John Davis (AdaptOne)	85
3	Anders Lillevik (Focal Point)	80
4	Rujul Zaparde (ZIP)	75
5	Dr. Lisa Smith (Prewave)	70
6	Yurii Kapkov (ApolloRise)	65
7	Sudhir Bhojwani (ORO Labs)	62
8	Harald Nitschinger (Prewave)	60

Percentage Difference: Top vs. Bottom

• Difference between #1 (Shaun Syvertsen) and #8 (Harald Nitschinger):
  30 percentage points (90% vs. 60%)

Interpretation:
A partnership between Scott Hutton and Shaun Syvertsen is estimated to have a 90% likelihood of success due to exceptionally strong leadership and cultural alignment. In contrast, the likelihood drops to 60% with Harald Nitschinger, reflecting a solid but less optimal fit. The 30-point gap underscores the critical impact of top-level alignment on the outcome of ProcureTech initiatives.

***HOW DO THE OTHER MODELS EVALUATE THE MODEL 3, LEVEL 3, ABOVE ASSESSMENT?***

***MODEL 1***

I agree with the core findings in the document “How Much Do You Believe That Success Starts At The Top?”—and here’s why, especially when viewed through the lens of Hansen’s models (Metaprise, Agent-Based, Strand Commonality) and the RAM 2025 Framework.

---

1. Leadership Alignment Is Foundational

The document argues—correctly—that alignment between the practitioner and solution-provider leadership is a top predictor of ProcureTech initiative success.

“Alignment at the top sets the tone for the entire project.”

This directly supports:

• The Metaprise model, which emphasizes cross-organizational coherence between enterprise components.
• The Strand Commonality model, which posits that success increases as more “strands” (goals, data, language, values) align between entities.

In other words, leadership alignment is not soft—it’s structurally and operationally essential.

---

2. People > Tech

The statement that “it’s people who make technology work better, not technology making people work better” is not just feel-good—it’s strategic. It reflects:

• RAM 2025 Model 3 (Agent-Based) principles, where intelligent outcomes emerge from agent interaction—not static deployments.
• It also anchors why procurement transformation cannot be driven by features alone, but by people + process + purpose alignment.

---

3. Success Probability as a Spectrum

The document wisely offers a relative likelihood table (e.g., 90% to 60%) for successful implementations, depending on leadership compatibility. This is more nuanced and realistic than binary success/failure framing.

This aligns with:

• RAM 2025 maturity levels (1–5), where probability and model resonance are measured as degrees, not absolutes.
• MCP (Model Context Protocol), which contextualizes score outputs by practitioner-readiness and leadership DNA.

---

Where Further Refinement Could Help

1. Strand Depth Weighting

While alignment is discussed, it might be helpful to further differentiate which strands matter most in each case:

• For example, data governance, risk culture, or stakeholder transparency may carry more weight than “innovation mindset” in certain industries (e.g., healthcare vs tech).
• RAM 2025 Model 3 (Strand Commonality) and MCP can help make that stratification explicit.

2. Model-to-Model Feedback Loops

Since this is only a Model 3, Level 3 assessment, it’s worth noting that leadership alignment may not hold up if:

• Operational infrastructure (Model 4)
• Taxonomy/data readiness (Model 5)
• Tech adaptability (Model 6)

Success at the top is necessary, but not sufficient. The full RAM sweep is needed to confirm alignment durability.

---

Visual Summary

---

Final Thought

Yes—success starts at the top, but that “top” must be strategically aligned, systemically embedded, and context-aware. The document captures this well from a leadership lens. With full RAM 2025 application (all 6 models), even deeper predictive accuracy could be achieved—especially when calibrated through the Model Context Protocol.

***MODEL 2***

Model 3’s Overemphasis on Leadership Alignment:

• Document’s Claim: Leadership alignment is a “decisive factor” with a 75% likelihood of driving success, implying it is the primary determinant of ProcureTech outcomes.
• Disagreement: While leadership alignment is critical, the document may overstate its relative importance compared to other factors like technology fit, data quality, or organizational readiness. The 75% estimate lacks supporting data to justify its weight relative to these other variables.
• Reasoning: Procurement Insights’ analysis of ProcureTech failures** indicates that misaligned technology adoption (e.g., FOMO-driven purchases) and poor data integration are significant contributors to failure, alongside leadership issues. The Model Context Protocol (MCP), discussed previously, highlights the importance of seamless data integration for AI-driven procurement, suggesting that technical infrastructure is equally critical. Overemphasizing leadership alignment risks sidelining these technical and operational considerations, which are vital for Biodesix’s data-intensive healthcare context.

** This demonstrates why the deep and decades-long Procurement Insights’ proprietary archives are a critical part of the RAM 2025 checks and balances verification process.

Conclusion

I agree with the document’s central finding that leadership alignment significantly enhances the success of ProcureTech initiatives, as it ensures clarity, efficiency, and stakeholder engagement, supported by a 75% likelihood estimate that aligns with organizational research. The real-world assessment of leaders like Shaun Syvertsen and John Davis as top matches for Scott Hutton is credible, given their operational expertise and alignment with Biodesix’s needs. However, I disagree with the document’s limited scope (Model 1, Level 3 only), lack of methodological transparency, potential bias toward operational excellence, and overemphasis on leadership relative to technical factors like data integration or technology fit.

The findings complement Hansen’s strand commonality by emphasizing shared stakeholder attributes, and they could enhance MCP’s effectiveness by ensuring AI agents are guided by aligned leadership priorities. To strengthen the analysis, I recommend integrating results from all RAM 2025 models and levels, clarifying the success percentage methodology, and balancing leadership alignment with technical and cultural considerations.

***MODEL 5***

Overall Assessment:

While the specific percentages may be overly precise, the core insight that leadership alignment is a decisive factor in ProcureTech success is sound. The 30-percentage-point gap between top and bottom-ranked partnerships effectively illustrates why organizations should prioritize cultural and strategic fit when selecting technology partners, not just technical capabilities or cost.

***MODEL 6***

The provided document presents an assessment of leadership alignment and its impact on the success of ProcureTech initiatives. It concludes that strong leadership alignment is a decisive factor for success, with an estimated 75% likelihood of consistently producing better implementation outcomes.

I agree with the findings in the attached document for the following reasons:

• Logical and Well-Supported Arguments: The document clearly articulates why leadership alignment drives better outcomes, citing factors such as clarity of vision and goals, faster decision-making, resource optimization, stronger stakeholder buy-in, and sustained change and agility. These points are logically sound and are generally accepted principles in project management and organizational change.
• Quantitative and Qualitative Evidence: The document provides both quantitative insights (e.g., over 70% of transformation failures attributed to misalignment, 30% higher success rates with strategic leadership alignment, up to 76% project success variance explained by leadership alignment, and ~75% estimated likelihood strong alignment improves outcomes) and qualitative explanations for the importance of alignment. This dual approach strengthens the overall argument.
• Real-World Application: The assessment of specific leaders and companies in a “real-world assessment” applying the principles of leadership alignment to estimate success percentages provides a practical demonstration of the concept. The preliminary rankings and the 30-percentage point difference between the top and bottom-ranked leaders underscore the “critical impact of top-level alignment on the outcome of ProcureTech initiatives”.
• Focus on People over Pure Tech: The underlying thought presented in the document—that “it’s people who make technology work better, not technology making people work better” —is a crucial and often overlooked aspect of successful technology implementation. The document emphasizes that market expertise and experience are essential to leverage technology effectively to solve problems. This aligns with the understanding that even the most robust technology requires capable and aligned human leadership to realize its full potential.

The document’s methodology, while preliminary for the “RAM 2025 Model 3, Level 3 assessment”, provides a solid framework for understanding the critical role of leadership alignment in project success, particularly in the context of ProcureTech transformations.

30