SAP Ariba’s Vulnerability Through Jim Collins’ Good to Great Framework (2025-2075)

Assessment: Vulnerability Will INCREASE by 65-75% over the 50-year period

Jim Collins’ Good to Great Framework Analysis

Stage 1 (2025-2035): Hubris Born of Success

Current SAP Ariba Position: Classic Stage 1 Indicators

Evidence of Hubris:

• 49% market dominance creates overconfidence in current model
• “Leader” designations from IDC MarketScape reinforce superiority complex
• $3.75 trillion transaction volume creates sense of invincibility
• Acquisition strategy (buying innovation rather than internal development)

Collins’ Warning Signs Present:

• Declaring victory too early despite emerging AI-first competitors
• Believing success will continue indefinitely due to network effects
• Neglecting the disciplined thought that created original success

Vulnerability Increase: +15-20% (2025-2035)

Stage 2 (2035-2045): Undisciplined Pursuit of More

Projected SAP Ariba Trajectory

Expected Manifestations:

• Feature Bloat: Adding capabilities beyond core procurement competencies
• Market Overreach: Attempting to dominate adjacent markets (HR, Finance, etc.)
• Acquisition Addiction: Buying competitors rather than organic innovation
• Complexity Creep: Platform becomes unwieldy for mid-market segments

Collins’ Predictions:

• Growth becomes an end in itself rather than means to greatness
• Core business discipline erodes as company pursues “more”
• Customer focus shifts to revenue maximization

Vulnerability Increase: +20-25% (2035-2045)

Stage 3 (2045-2055): Denial of Risk and Peril

Critical Vulnerability Period

Anticipated Denial Patterns:

• “Network Effects Will Protect Us”: Overreliance on switching costs
• “AI is Just a Feature”: Underestimating paradigm shift potential
• “We’re Too Big to Fail”: Dismissing competitive threats
• “Our Data Moat is Unbreachable”: Ignoring API-first, interoperable solutions

External Warning Signs (Likely to be Ignored):

• Declining customer satisfaction scores
• Longer implementation times and higher costs
• Nimble competitors winning specific verticals
• Regulatory scrutiny of market dominance

Vulnerability Increase: +15-20% (2045-2055)

Stage 4 (2055-2065): Grasping for Salvation

Desperate Measures Period

Predicted Panic Responses:

• Revolutionary Change Programs: Complete platform overhauls
• Leadership Turnover: Bringing in “transformation” executives
• Massive Acquisitions: Purchasing AI-native competitors at premium prices
• Price Wars: Aggressive discounting to retain market share

Collins’ Observations:

• Quick fixes and silver bullets replace sustained discipline
• Company culture shifts from confidence to fear
• Short-term thinking dominates long-term strategy

Vulnerability Increase: +10-15% (2055-2065)

Stage 5 (2065-2075): Capitulation to Irrelevance or Death

Final Outcome Period

Potential Scenarios:

• Acquisition by Competitor: Becomes subsidiary of more agile platform
• Market Fragmentation: Loses dominance to specialized solutions
• Regulatory Breakup: Government intervention forces divestiture
• Technology Obsolescence: Blockchain/decentralized systems replace centralized platforms

Vulnerability Increase: +15-20% (2065-2075)

Collins Framework Vulnerability Drivers

1. The Flywheel Effect in Reverse

• Current Advantage: Network effects create virtuous cycle
• Future Risk: Complexity and cost create vicious cycle of customer defection

2. Level 5 Leadership Erosion

• Professional Will vs Personal Ego: Success breeds ego-driven decisions
• Window and Mirror: Credit-taking replaces accountability culture

3. Hedgehog Concept Drift

• Original Concept: “Best B2B procurement network platform”
• Future Drift: “Everything business platform” losing focus

4. Culture of Discipline Breakdown

• Current: Disciplined growth within procurement
• Future Risk: Undisciplined expansion beyond core competencies

Technological and Market Accelerators

AI Revolution (2025-2035)

• Threat Level: Moderate to High
• Native AI platforms could bypass traditional architecture
• Younger workforce preferences for intuitive, mobile-first solutions

Blockchain/Decentralized Systems (2035-2050)

• Threat Level: High
• Direct peer-to-peer procurement networks
• Elimination of central platform dependency

Regulatory Changes (2040-2060)

• Threat Level: Moderate
• Antitrust actions against market dominance
• Data portability requirements reducing lock-in

Generational Shift (2030-2070)

• Threat Level: High
• Digital-native decision makers prioritize user experience
• Preference for best-of-breed vs. monolithic solutions

Final Assessment

Total Vulnerability Increase: 65-75%

Timeline Breakdown:

• 2025-2035: +15-20% (Hubris accumulation)
• 2035-2045: +20-25% (Undisciplined expansion)
• 2045-2055: +15-20% (Denial phase)
• 2055-2065: +10-15% (Panic responses)
• 2065-2075: +15-20% (Capitulation risk)

Collins’ Core Insight Applied:

“The signature of the truly great versus the merely successful is a disciplined focus on what you can potentially do better than any other organization.”

SAP Ariba’s vulnerability increases precisely because market dominance breeds the disciplinary breakdown that Collins identifies as the primary destroyer of sustained greatness. The 50-year timeframe allows the full cycle to play out, with vulnerability accelerating as the company moves through each stage of decline.

Bottom Line: While SAP Ariba appears “too big to fail” today, Collins’ framework suggests that very dominance contains the seeds of its eventual vulnerability increase.

30

BONUS COVERAGE

Summary of Hansen Fit Score Changes

• 2025: 85/100 (Baseline)
• 2035: 68-72.25/100 (-12.75 to -17)
• 2045: 46.75-55.25/100 (-29.75 to -38.25)
• 2055: 29.75-42.5/100 (-42.5 to -55.25)
• 2065: 17-34/100 (-51 to -68)
• 2075: 0-21.25/100 (-63.75 to -85)

Critical Examination

The establishment narrative often portrays SAP Ariba’s market leadership (49%, $3.75T volume) as a guarantee of long-term success, reinforced by analyst accolades (e.g., Gartner, 2025). However, the document’s Collins framework reveals that this dominance sows seeds of vulnerability—hubris, undisciplined growth, and denial—amplified by AI, blockchain, and regulatory threats. The 65-75% vulnerability increase aligns with the 70% ProcureTech failure rate, suggesting a realistic decline trajectory. The HFS drop to near-zero by 2075 challenges the assumption of perpetual relevance, highlighting the need for adaptive strategies to counter technological obsolescence.

Conclusion

SAP Ariba’s 2025 HFS is estimated at 85/100, reflecting its current strength but early hubris. Over 50 years, the score is projected to decline significantly—reaching 68-72.25 by 2035, 46.75-55.25 by 2045, 29.75-42.5 by 2055, 17-34 by 2065, and 0-21.25 by 2075—driven by a 65-75% vulnerability increase. This decline underscores the risk of losing focus and adaptability, offering a cautionary tale against the establishment’s overconfident narrative.

In an upcoming post, I will talk about the mitigation strategy to stabilize SAP Ariba’s Hansen Fit Score.

**EDITOR’S NOTE** Today’s post is for discussion purposes only, as it is a preliminary RAM 2025 Model 1 of 6 models and Level 1 of 5 levels of assessment. As I run it through the assessment process of the other models and levels, I will provide you with an update.