Together, the DND and Virginia eVA case studies create a powerful dual validation for the Hansen Fit Score methodology:
- DND proves operational transformation through agent-based stakeholder ecosystem mapping
- Virginia eVA demonstrates scaling success through stakeholder collaboration and process-first thinking
DND (1998)
How the DND Case Study Dramatically Reinforces the Hansen Fit Score Assessment Framework
The DND case study provides extraordinary validation and enhancement for the Hansen Fit Score methodology, particularly reinforcing its emphasis on agent-based modeling, cross-functional alignment, and operational reality over technology features.
1. Agent-Based vs. Equation-Based Validation
The DND case achieved “a year-over-year 23% cost of goods savings for seven consecutive years while simultaneously reducing the number of buyers required to manage the contract to 3 from an original 23,” using an agent-based approach – Are you chasing solutions or solving problems? (Part 1 of 3). This directly validates the HFS philosophy of measuring semantic alignment at all levels rather than just technical capabilities.
HFS Impact: The DND results become a benchmark proof case that agent-based modeling (understanding all stakeholders) delivers measurably superior outcomes to equation-based technology-first approaches.
2. “Strand Echo” Through Cross-Stakeholder Understanding
The groundwork for what was accomplished “occurred before the technology was introduced,” including improving “SLA performance from 51% to 97.3% in 3 months” through understanding how field service technicians, suppliers, and customs processes actually operated – Are you chasing solutions or solving problems? (Part 1 of 3).
HFS Recalibration Impact: This validates that genuine strand echo requires mapping the entire stakeholder ecosystem before technology deployment. The HFS framework would weight pre-implementation stakeholder analysis much more heavily based on this evidence.
3. Prevention of “Strand Drift” Through Systems Thinking
The case reveals that “field service technicians all carried laptops to update calls and order parts” but their performance was “measured by how many service calls they could attend in a day,” so they “sandbagged all orders until the end of the day,” causing procurement to receive bulk orders “until late afternoon – early evening” Are you chasing solutions or solving problems? (Part 1 of 3).
This demonstrates how siloed thinking creates inevitable strand drift – where technology solutions fail because they don’t account for how other systems actually operate.
HFS Impact: The DND case provides a diagnostic framework for identifying potential strand drift sources during assessment – looking at performance metrics, timing conflicts, and cross-departmental workflow dependencies.
4. Third-Party Stakeholder Complexity
The analysis revealed that “85% of all suppliers were based in the United States, meaning we had to deal with Canadian customs,” and “the later in the day a part was ordered, the higher the cost,” with “significant impact on delivery performance” – Are you chasing solutions or solving problems? (Part 1 of 3).
HFS Recalibration Impact: This validates the HFS emphasis on third-party inclusivity but adds a crucial time-dependency dimension. The framework would now include temporal workflow analysis as a key fit criterion.
5. Technology as Tool vs. Driver Philosophy
The case demonstrates that “when organizations make the mistake of leading with technology, they are bending their people and processes around an equation-based model approach.” In contrast, “when you lead with people and process understanding – an agent-based model, technology moves from a functional driver to a problem-solving tool” – Are you chasing solutions or solving problems? (Part 1 of 3).
HFS Strategic Impact: This serves as a foundational validation of the Hansen Fit Score’s core philosophy—that continuous operational alignment matters more than technical features.
Combined Impact with Virginia eVA Case Study
Together, the Virginia eVA and DND case studies create a powerful dual validation for the Hansen Fit Score methodology:
- Virginia eVA demonstrates scaling success through stakeholder collaboration and process-first thinking
- DND proves operational transformation through agent-based stakeholder ecosystem mapping
Enhanced HFS Framework Implications:
- Weighted Assessment Criteria:
- Agent ecosystem mapping becomes a primary fit indicator
- Cross-stakeholder workflow analysis gets elevated weighting
- Technology feature comparisons get reduced weighting
- Continuous Recalibration Methodology:
- Temporal dependency tracking (time-of-day impacts like DND customs/pricing)
- Performance metric conflict detection (service call volume vs. procurement timing)
- Multi-stakeholder success measurement (not just procurement department metrics)
- Strand Drift Prevention:
- Early warning indicators based on cross-departmental performance metric misalignment
- External stakeholder behavior analysis (supplier patterns, regulatory requirements)
- Workflow bottleneck identification before it causes system failure
The DND case study essentially provides the Hansen Fit Score, which utilizes a proven diagnostic methodology for conducting deep stakeholder analysis, distinguishing it from traditional technology-focused assessment approaches, such as Gartner’s feature comparisons or Hackett’s benchmarking metrics.
The combination positions the HFS as the only assessment framework with empirical evidence that its agent-based, operationally-grounded approach delivers measurably superior long-term results than technology-first methodologies.
The Commonwealth of Virginia eVA Initiative (2007)
How the Virginia eVA Case Studies Impact the Hansen Fit Score Assessment
Based on the Hansen Fit Score’s focus on continuous operational alignment, cross-functional fit, and prevention of “strand drift,” the Virginia eVA case studies provide compelling validation and refinement opportunities for several key HFS dimensions:
1. “Strand Echo” Validation
The Virginia case demonstrates authentic “strand echo” – where intended benefits actually materialized operationally, growing from less than 1% to 80-90% spend capture over six years – Yes, Virginia! There is more to e-procurement than software! (Part 1). This validates the HFS emphasis on measuring whether benefits truly “echo” through real operational systems rather than just existing on paper.
HFS Recalibration Impact: The Virginia metrics (spend capture, supplier engagement, order distribution) become benchmark indicators for what genuine strand echo looks like in practice.
2. Cross-Functional Alignment Methodology
Virginia’s success stemmed from recognizing that government comprises “many different lines of business” with “special needs, special rules and special challenges” – Higher Education, K-12, Corrections, Public Safety, Transportation, Health, Social Services, and Construction – Yes, Virginia! There is more to e-procurement than software! (Part 1). This directly validates the HFS focus on semantic alignment at all levels.
HFS Recalibration Impact: The case study provides a proven methodology for achieving cross-functional alignment that the HFS can incorporate into its assessment criteria – emphasizing stakeholder engagement depth over technology capabilities.
3. Prevention of “Strand Drift”
Virginia avoided the trap of eVA becoming a “software project” and shifted emphasis from an exercise in cost justification to one of process understanding and refinement. This exemplifies the prevention of strand drift, where initiatives lose focus on operational realities.
HFS Recalibration Impact: The Virginia approach becomes a template for identifying early warning signs of strand drift and maintaining process-centric focus throughout implementation.
4. Third-Party Inclusivity and Supply Base Engagement
Supplier registration grew from 20,000 to 34,000, but more importantly, the actual number of suppliers receiving orders increased from 5,000 to 6,000 to over 14,000. Yes, Virginia! There is more to e-procurement than software! (Part 2). This demonstrates successful third-party stakeholder integration that the HFS values.
HFS Recalibration Impact: Supply base activation ratios become key metrics for measuring third-party inclusivity effectiveness within the HFS framework.
5. Continuous Adaptation and Real-Time Diagnostics
Virginia’s collaborative approach enabled them to identify and remove obstacles before mandating participation and maintain supplier interest through expanding business distribution across the broader supply network. This mirrors the HFS emphasis on continuous recalibration based on operational realities.
HFS Recalibration Impact: The Virginia case provides evidence for how ongoing stakeholder feedback and operational adjustment prevent misalignment, validating the HFS continuous recalibration methodology.
Strategic Implications for the Hansen Fit Score Framework
The Virginia case studies would likely lead to weighted emphasis adjustments in the HFS:
- Increased weighting for stakeholder engagement methodology over technical feature sets
- Enhanced focus on supply chain ecosystem development as a fit indicator
- Greater emphasis on financial model alignment between vendors and customers
- Stronger validation of process-centric versus technology-centric evaluation criteria
The Virginia eVA success story offers real-world evidence of the Hansen Fit Score’s core philosophy, which emphasizes that sustained operational alignment and continuous adaptation are more crucial than initial technical capabilities or one-time implementation metrics.
This strengthens the HFS positioning against traditional approaches, such as Gartner’s periodic assessments or Hackett’s benchmarking focus, by demonstrating that Virginia’s success came precisely from the kind of ongoing, operationally grounded alignment that the Hansen Fit Score methodology emphasizes.
30
Procurement Insights
Case Studies And The Hansen Fit Score (A Third Party Review)
Posted on July 19, 2025
0
Together, the DND and Virginia eVA case studies create a powerful dual validation for the Hansen Fit Score methodology:
DND (1998)
How the DND Case Study Dramatically Reinforces the Hansen Fit Score Assessment Framework
The DND case study provides extraordinary validation and enhancement for the Hansen Fit Score methodology, particularly reinforcing its emphasis on agent-based modeling, cross-functional alignment, and operational reality over technology features.
1. Agent-Based vs. Equation-Based Validation
The DND case achieved “a year-over-year 23% cost of goods savings for seven consecutive years while simultaneously reducing the number of buyers required to manage the contract to 3 from an original 23,” using an agent-based approach – Are you chasing solutions or solving problems? (Part 1 of 3). This directly validates the HFS philosophy of measuring semantic alignment at all levels rather than just technical capabilities.
HFS Impact: The DND results become a benchmark proof case that agent-based modeling (understanding all stakeholders) delivers measurably superior outcomes to equation-based technology-first approaches.
2. “Strand Echo” Through Cross-Stakeholder Understanding
The groundwork for what was accomplished “occurred before the technology was introduced,” including improving “SLA performance from 51% to 97.3% in 3 months” through understanding how field service technicians, suppliers, and customs processes actually operated – Are you chasing solutions or solving problems? (Part 1 of 3).
HFS Recalibration Impact: This validates that genuine strand echo requires mapping the entire stakeholder ecosystem before technology deployment. The HFS framework would weight pre-implementation stakeholder analysis much more heavily based on this evidence.
3. Prevention of “Strand Drift” Through Systems Thinking
The case reveals that “field service technicians all carried laptops to update calls and order parts” but their performance was “measured by how many service calls they could attend in a day,” so they “sandbagged all orders until the end of the day,” causing procurement to receive bulk orders “until late afternoon – early evening” Are you chasing solutions or solving problems? (Part 1 of 3).
This demonstrates how siloed thinking creates inevitable strand drift – where technology solutions fail because they don’t account for how other systems actually operate.
HFS Impact: The DND case provides a diagnostic framework for identifying potential strand drift sources during assessment – looking at performance metrics, timing conflicts, and cross-departmental workflow dependencies.
4. Third-Party Stakeholder Complexity
The analysis revealed that “85% of all suppliers were based in the United States, meaning we had to deal with Canadian customs,” and “the later in the day a part was ordered, the higher the cost,” with “significant impact on delivery performance” – Are you chasing solutions or solving problems? (Part 1 of 3).
HFS Recalibration Impact: This validates the HFS emphasis on third-party inclusivity but adds a crucial time-dependency dimension. The framework would now include temporal workflow analysis as a key fit criterion.
5. Technology as Tool vs. Driver Philosophy
The case demonstrates that “when organizations make the mistake of leading with technology, they are bending their people and processes around an equation-based model approach.” In contrast, “when you lead with people and process understanding – an agent-based model, technology moves from a functional driver to a problem-solving tool” – Are you chasing solutions or solving problems? (Part 1 of 3).
HFS Strategic Impact: This serves as a foundational validation of the Hansen Fit Score’s core philosophy—that continuous operational alignment matters more than technical features.
Combined Impact with Virginia eVA Case Study
Together, the Virginia eVA and DND case studies create a powerful dual validation for the Hansen Fit Score methodology:
Enhanced HFS Framework Implications:
The DND case study essentially provides the Hansen Fit Score, which utilizes a proven diagnostic methodology for conducting deep stakeholder analysis, distinguishing it from traditional technology-focused assessment approaches, such as Gartner’s feature comparisons or Hackett’s benchmarking metrics.
The combination positions the HFS as the only assessment framework with empirical evidence that its agent-based, operationally-grounded approach delivers measurably superior long-term results than technology-first methodologies.
The Commonwealth of Virginia eVA Initiative (2007)
How the Virginia eVA Case Studies Impact the Hansen Fit Score Assessment
Based on the Hansen Fit Score’s focus on continuous operational alignment, cross-functional fit, and prevention of “strand drift,” the Virginia eVA case studies provide compelling validation and refinement opportunities for several key HFS dimensions:
1. “Strand Echo” Validation
The Virginia case demonstrates authentic “strand echo” – where intended benefits actually materialized operationally, growing from less than 1% to 80-90% spend capture over six years – Yes, Virginia! There is more to e-procurement than software! (Part 1). This validates the HFS emphasis on measuring whether benefits truly “echo” through real operational systems rather than just existing on paper.
HFS Recalibration Impact: The Virginia metrics (spend capture, supplier engagement, order distribution) become benchmark indicators for what genuine strand echo looks like in practice.
2. Cross-Functional Alignment Methodology
Virginia’s success stemmed from recognizing that government comprises “many different lines of business” with “special needs, special rules and special challenges” – Higher Education, K-12, Corrections, Public Safety, Transportation, Health, Social Services, and Construction – Yes, Virginia! There is more to e-procurement than software! (Part 1). This directly validates the HFS focus on semantic alignment at all levels.
HFS Recalibration Impact: The case study provides a proven methodology for achieving cross-functional alignment that the HFS can incorporate into its assessment criteria – emphasizing stakeholder engagement depth over technology capabilities.
3. Prevention of “Strand Drift”
Virginia avoided the trap of eVA becoming a “software project” and shifted emphasis from an exercise in cost justification to one of process understanding and refinement. This exemplifies the prevention of strand drift, where initiatives lose focus on operational realities.
HFS Recalibration Impact: The Virginia approach becomes a template for identifying early warning signs of strand drift and maintaining process-centric focus throughout implementation.
4. Third-Party Inclusivity and Supply Base Engagement
Supplier registration grew from 20,000 to 34,000, but more importantly, the actual number of suppliers receiving orders increased from 5,000 to 6,000 to over 14,000. Yes, Virginia! There is more to e-procurement than software! (Part 2). This demonstrates successful third-party stakeholder integration that the HFS values.
HFS Recalibration Impact: Supply base activation ratios become key metrics for measuring third-party inclusivity effectiveness within the HFS framework.
5. Continuous Adaptation and Real-Time Diagnostics
Virginia’s collaborative approach enabled them to identify and remove obstacles before mandating participation and maintain supplier interest through expanding business distribution across the broader supply network. This mirrors the HFS emphasis on continuous recalibration based on operational realities.
HFS Recalibration Impact: The Virginia case provides evidence for how ongoing stakeholder feedback and operational adjustment prevent misalignment, validating the HFS continuous recalibration methodology.
Strategic Implications for the Hansen Fit Score Framework
The Virginia case studies would likely lead to weighted emphasis adjustments in the HFS:
The Virginia eVA success story offers real-world evidence of the Hansen Fit Score’s core philosophy, which emphasizes that sustained operational alignment and continuous adaptation are more crucial than initial technical capabilities or one-time implementation metrics.
This strengthens the HFS positioning against traditional approaches, such as Gartner’s periodic assessments or Hackett’s benchmarking focus, by demonstrating that Virginia’s success came precisely from the kind of ongoing, operationally grounded alignment that the Hansen Fit Score methodology emphasizes.
30
Share this:
Related