Is This An Example Of Gartner Trying To Escape “The Equation-based Box Or Are They Still Trapped In The Four Corners?”

Look at the three images below.

• Two of the graphs are from 2025.
• One of the graphs is from 1998.

Can you see the difference between the 1998 and 2025 graphs?

1998

2025 (1)

2025 (2)

WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE – HERE’S THE DIFFERENCE

Among the three attached graphics, the one that best reflects Hansen’s Metaprise, Agent-Based, and Strand Commonality models is the third graphic (1999–2024 Metaprise evolution graphic). Here’s why—and how the other two fall short:

---

✅ BEST FIT: 1999–2024 Metaprise Evolution Graphic (Image 3)

Alignment with Hansen’s Models:

Why It Wins:

• Captures Hansen’s evolutionary arc: from centralized command structures to interoperable, distributed, agent-based ecosystems
• Embeds semantic and contextual interconnectivity—exactly what strand commonality represents
• Synchronous collaboration between digital entities (apps as agents) highlights a Metaprise dynamic in 2024

---

PARTIAL FIT: Gartner Process Automation Architecture (Image 1)

✅ Strengths:

• Incorporates AI/ML platforms, intelligent document processing, LCNC (low-code/no-code) frameworks, and orchestration
• Visualizes multiple agents and layers, which hint at agent-based design
• Mentions GenAI prompts and process mining, which aligns with Strand Commonality’s insight layer

❌ Misses the Mark:

• The architecture is layered but linear, more pipeline-structured than true Metaprise
• The system is still highly orchestrated centrally, with “Orchestration” as a choke point—agentic autonomy is constrained
• Lacks clear semantic thread visibility—doesn’t show commonality strands across systems (only technical layers)

---

❌ LEAST FIT: Gartner Operating Models (Image 2)

✅ Strengths:

• Acknowledges decentralization, shadow IT, and business-outcome alignment
• Promotes cross-functional product teams, which aligns with agent-like autonomy at the organizational level

❌ Misses the Mark:

• Entirely organizational/infrastructure focused, not technology/system behavior based
• No reference to semantic interoperability, system of systems, or synchronous collaboration
• Does not visualize capability threads across units—thus missing the Strand Commonality foundation

---

Summary Comparison Table

---

Conclusion:

Image 3 (1999–2024 Metaprise Evolution) most accurately captures Hansen’s vision of an evolving, strand-connected, multi-agent, Metaprise ecosystem—where apps operate semi-independently within a shared context.
It bridges history and foresight, showing how legacy linear systems evolved into synchronous agent-based architectures, making it not only conceptually superior but visually aligned with Hansen’s foundational models.

TODAY’S TAKEAWAY

It’s time to move beyond the equation-based box and start utilizing the Metaprise, Agent-based, Strand Commonality development and implementation model.

So, how do you do that?

Think outside of the box.

EMERGING NEW MODELS

30