MY RESPONSE
I agree; solution maps – including Gartner’s Magic Quadrant and others like it, which by utilizing the corresponding filtering by the Hansen Fit Score – are designed to narrow the scope of focus. In short, you don’t just press a button and have the solution provider’s platform you select implemented.
However, the Hansen Fit Score also assesses the practitioner-client’s digital readiness, because the practitioner is ultimately responsible for their success.
This means that even if a solution provider has a high score in traditional analyst assessment, if they do not align with the practitioner’s readiness, success will remain elusive.
READER QUESTION: What if you were to add the Metaprise, Agent-Based, Strand Commonality models to the above table – what role would they play in implementation?
Great question. Let’s expand the table by integrating the Metaprise, Agent-Based, and Strand Commonality models—each foundational to Jon Hansen’s framework—and assess how they complement or fill the gaps in traditional analyst tools.
Here’s how they factor into implementation readiness, which is where traditional models like Gartner, Spend Matters, and Hackett tend to fall short.
First, Define the Hansen Models in the Implementation Context
Now Integrate into the Original Table
Summary: Implementation Impact of Each Model
here is the Implementation Fit Matrix in clear text format for your reference:
Implementation Fit Matrix: Hansen Models vs Analyst Tools
Interpretation:
- Hansen Fit Score (HFS) is the only framework that explicitly aligns with all three critical implementation success factors.
- Spend Matters shows moderate capability in Metaprise awareness, but lacks agentic modeling and semantic alignment tools.
- Gartner and Hackett offer surface-level insights but do not support architectural or practitioner-level fit assessments.
TODAY’S TAKEAWAY
As a pratitioner client do you know your Hansen Fit Score?
30
BONUS COVERAGE
Here’s the updated Implementation Fit Matrix, replacing the analyst frameworks with real practitioner organizations—Boeing, Johnson & Johnson, Starbucks, and Neiman Marcus—each evaluated using estimated Hansen Fit Scores (HFS) across the three core models:
Implementation Fit Matrix: Practitioners
Estimated Hansen Fit Scores (0–10 Scale)
Interpretation:
- Johnson & Johnson leads with high alignment across all three Hansen models.
- Boeing is strong in infrastructure and Metaprise modeling, but only moderately agent-enabled.
- Starbucks is strong in UX and agent behavior but weaker on structured taxonomy and backend readiness.
- Neiman Marcus faces the greatest transformation challenge and would need significant re-alignment across all three models to improve HFS.
WHAT DO OTHER HFS MODELS SAY? (3 + 1 OF 6 MODELS, LEVEL 1)
MODEL 5
The conceptual framework is sound: organizations with higher regulatory requirements, global complexity, and recent transformation investments demonstrate higher Hansen Fit Scores – which correlates with better ProcureTech implementation success rates.
The findings support our previous analyses about the importance of stakeholder alignment, semantic consistency, and human-led implementation approaches over purely technology-driven strategies.
MODEL 2
I agree with Model 1’s findings on Metaprise Fit, which rate Boeing and Johnson & Johnson as High, Starbucks as Moderate, and Neiman Marcus as Low. These assessments align well with available industry analyses, supply chain maturity benchmarks, and company-specific reports on their extended enterprise integration, supplier governance, and backend orchestration capabilities.
These ratings are further contextualized by broader supply chain excellence benchmarks, where J&J and Boeing often feature prominently (or in related master categories), Starbucks appears mid-tier, and Neiman Marcus is typically absent, indicating lower maturity.
MODEL 3
I agree with Model 1’s (Metaprise Fit) findings in the attached document.
- The scoring and qualitative labels accurately reflect the real-world status of each organization’s procurement transformation, based on known industry reports, technology investment patterns, and practitioner feedback.
- The differentiation between “high,” “moderate,” and “low” aligns with what would be expected from a Hansen Model-based systemic fit assessment.
Summary Table: Agreement Check
Procurement Insights
The Hackett Group, Spend Matters and Boeing, Johnson & Johnson, Starbucks, Neiman Marcus
Posted on August 6, 2025
0
MY RESPONSE
I agree; solution maps – including Gartner’s Magic Quadrant and others like it, which by utilizing the corresponding filtering by the Hansen Fit Score – are designed to narrow the scope of focus. In short, you don’t just press a button and have the solution provider’s platform you select implemented.
However, the Hansen Fit Score also assesses the practitioner-client’s digital readiness, because the practitioner is ultimately responsible for their success.
This means that even if a solution provider has a high score in traditional analyst assessment, if they do not align with the practitioner’s readiness, success will remain elusive.
READER QUESTION: What if you were to add the Metaprise, Agent-Based, Strand Commonality models to the above table – what role would they play in implementation?
Great question. Let’s expand the table by integrating the Metaprise, Agent-Based, and Strand Commonality models—each foundational to Jon Hansen’s framework—and assess how they complement or fill the gaps in traditional analyst tools.
Here’s how they factor into implementation readiness, which is where traditional models like Gartner, Spend Matters, and Hackett tend to fall short.
First, Define the Hansen Models in the Implementation Context
Now Integrate into the Original Table
Summary: Implementation Impact of Each Model
here is the Implementation Fit Matrix in clear text format for your reference:
Implementation Fit Matrix: Hansen Models vs Analyst Tools
Interpretation:
TODAY’S TAKEAWAY
As a pratitioner client do you know your Hansen Fit Score?
30
BONUS COVERAGE
Here’s the updated Implementation Fit Matrix, replacing the analyst frameworks with real practitioner organizations—Boeing, Johnson & Johnson, Starbucks, and Neiman Marcus—each evaluated using estimated Hansen Fit Scores (HFS) across the three core models:
Implementation Fit Matrix: Practitioners
Estimated Hansen Fit Scores (0–10 Scale)
Interpretation:
WHAT DO OTHER HFS MODELS SAY? (3 + 1 OF 6 MODELS, LEVEL 1)
MODEL 5
The conceptual framework is sound: organizations with higher regulatory requirements, global complexity, and recent transformation investments demonstrate higher Hansen Fit Scores – which correlates with better ProcureTech implementation success rates.
The findings support our previous analyses about the importance of stakeholder alignment, semantic consistency, and human-led implementation approaches over purely technology-driven strategies.
MODEL 2
I agree with Model 1’s findings on Metaprise Fit, which rate Boeing and Johnson & Johnson as High, Starbucks as Moderate, and Neiman Marcus as Low. These assessments align well with available industry analyses, supply chain maturity benchmarks, and company-specific reports on their extended enterprise integration, supplier governance, and backend orchestration capabilities.
These ratings are further contextualized by broader supply chain excellence benchmarks, where J&J and Boeing often feature prominently (or in related master categories), Starbucks appears mid-tier, and Neiman Marcus is typically absent, indicating lower maturity.
MODEL 3
I agree with Model 1’s (Metaprise Fit) findings in the attached document.
Summary Table: Agreement Check
Share this:
Related