EDITOR’S NOTE: I received the following DM from a follower regarding my recent James Meads post and the RAM 2025 assessment relating to the Hansen Fit Score:
Jon, is this a typo? Asking for a friend🤣
You know I’m one of your biggest fans – just not seeing this, though.
“Deep orchestration, robust AI”
Anywho- how is your summer going? Any plans to visit the States? Hope you are doing well, my friend!
Before I share my response, I am happy for “one of my biggest fans” raising their friend’s question, as I was hoping someone would eventually do so. By the way, I think their “friend” is pretty smart. 😉
MY RESPONSE
It’s always great to hear from you.
Did your friend read the Editor’s Note at the bottom of the post? 😉
Here it is in case they missed it:
EDITOR’S NOTE: The above RAM 2025 Assessment is only 2 MODELS, LEVEL 1. There are a total of 6 models and 5 levels that incorporate criteria such as Practitioner Hansen Fit Score, Cultural Alignment between Practitioner and Provider, and other factors that collectively achieve a Fit Score Accuracy of 85% to 95%.
There is a reason why there are six models and five levels with the HFS scoring. While we don’t ignore the mainstream “trumpeting” or focus on PR-induced look at how good we are chest pounding, a phrase that has permeated the industry lexicon, the deep sifting or filtering through the remaining models and levels is where the real truth can be found. That’s one of the reasons why I often indicate that the rankings can and likely will change significantly.
For example, let’s look at SAP with the proprietary Procurement Insights Archives filtering level added – Remember 5 Levels:
1. The Procurement Insights Archives essentially serve as a historical cautionary tale database.
2. The archives essentially create a risk-adjusted evaluation framework that accounts for the full cost of SAP implementation challenges, likely resulting in significantly lower Hansen Fit Scores compared to traditional analyst rankings that may focus more on feature completeness than practical implementation success.
So, what about the SAP score?
Key Assessment Implications
The Procurement Insights Archives suggest Hansen Fit Scores would weight these factors heavily:
Implementation Risk: SAP’s documented failure history significantly impacts scoring
Process Flexibility: Both solutions score poorly on adapting to business processes
User Adoption: Complex interfaces and lengthy implementations reduce practical value
Market Evolution: The shift toward cloud-native, best-of-breed solutions favors competitors over integrated SAP offerings.
To your question about a typo, no, it isn’t a typo. Level 1 is simply a reflection of the existing, center-stage, publicly available information that is out there.
The remaining five levels peel away the layers of that onion.
As for you, my friend, when are you planning to make a trip up to the Great White North?
Best,
J
TODAY’S TAKEAWAY
How does the Hansen Fit Score improve practitioner-provider outcomes versus Gartner, Spend Matters, Deloitte, McKinsey, and G2?
Procurement Insights 
Why Are There 6-Models and 5-Levels in the Hansen Fit Score Assessment.
Posted on August 8, 2025
0
EDITOR’S NOTE: I received the following DM from a follower regarding my recent James Meads post and the RAM 2025 assessment relating to the Hansen Fit Score:
Jon, is this a typo? Asking for a friend🤣
You know I’m one of your biggest fans – just not seeing this, though.
“Deep orchestration, robust AI”
Anywho- how is your summer going? Any plans to visit the States? Hope you are doing well, my friend!
Before I share my response, I am happy for “one of my biggest fans” raising their friend’s question, as I was hoping someone would eventually do so. By the way, I think their “friend” is pretty smart. 😉
MY RESPONSE
It’s always great to hear from you.
Did your friend read the Editor’s Note at the bottom of the post? 😉
Here it is in case they missed it:
EDITOR’S NOTE: The above RAM 2025 Assessment is only 2 MODELS, LEVEL 1. There are a total of 6 models and 5 levels that incorporate criteria such as Practitioner Hansen Fit Score, Cultural Alignment between Practitioner and Provider, and other factors that collectively achieve a Fit Score Accuracy of 85% to 95%.
There is a reason why there are six models and five levels with the HFS scoring. While we don’t ignore the mainstream “trumpeting” or focus on PR-induced look at how good we are chest pounding, a phrase that has permeated the industry lexicon, the deep sifting or filtering through the remaining models and levels is where the real truth can be found. That’s one of the reasons why I often indicate that the rankings can and likely will change significantly.
For example, let’s look at SAP with the proprietary Procurement Insights Archives filtering level added – Remember 5 Levels:
1. The Procurement Insights Archives essentially serve as a historical cautionary tale database.
2. The archives essentially create a risk-adjusted evaluation framework that accounts for the full cost of SAP implementation challenges, likely resulting in significantly lower Hansen Fit Scores compared to traditional analyst rankings that may focus more on feature completeness than practical implementation success.
So, what about the SAP score?
Key Assessment Implications
The Procurement Insights Archives suggest Hansen Fit Scores would weight these factors heavily:
Implementation Risk: SAP’s documented failure history significantly impacts scoring
Process Flexibility: Both solutions score poorly on adapting to business processes
User Adoption: Complex interfaces and lengthy implementations reduce practical value
Market Evolution: The shift toward cloud-native, best-of-breed solutions favors competitors over integrated SAP offerings.
To your question about a typo, no, it isn’t a typo. Level 1 is simply a reflection of the existing, center-stage, publicly available information that is out there.
The remaining five levels peel away the layers of that onion.
As for you, my friend, when are you planning to make a trip up to the Great White North?
Best,
J
TODAY’S TAKEAWAY
How does the Hansen Fit Score improve practitioner-provider outcomes versus Gartner, Spend Matters, Deloitte, McKinsey, and G2?
Share this:
Related