QUESTION #1 – Which companies within which industries are likely to be more successful with a practitioner-led modular strategy, and which will be more successful with a solution provider-led modular strategy, and why?
Here is a breakdown of which companies and industries are likely to be more successful with practitioner-led modular strategies versus solution provider-led modular strategies, and the reasons why:
Practitioner-Led Modular Strategy
Most Likely to Succeed:
Industries:
Pharmaceuticals & Life Sciences
Financial Services & Banking
High-Tech & Electronics
Aerospace & Defense
Large-scale Manufacturing
Energy & Utilities
Healthcare Systems
Company Characteristics:
Large, complex, multinational organizations
Operations in highly regulated or rapidly changing environments
Organizations with robust internal procurement, supply chain, and IT expertise
Companies with innovation cultures, custom process requirements, or unique compliance mandates
Enterprises with a history of digital transformation initiatives and cross-functional collaboration
Why?
Customization: High complexity and unique regulatory demands require tailored workflows and advanced compliance/risk controls.
Agility: Fast-changing market, regulatory, or customer expectations mean solutions must adapt quickly—practitioners can curate and combine the best tech for their specific needs.
Better Adoption: Custom solutions built with practitioner input foster higher user engagement and adoption.
Maximized Value: Enables continual optimization as business needs evolve.
Example Companies:
Novartis, Pfizer (pharma)
JPMorgan Chase (banking)
Boeing (aerospace)
Siemens (manufacturing)
Shell (energy)
Microsoft (tech)
Solution Provider-Led Modular Strategy
Most Likely to Succeed:
Industries:
Retail & Consumer Goods
Logistics & Distribution
Public Sector & Education
Smaller-Scale Services Firms
Hospitality & Travel
Food & Beverage
Company Characteristics:
Small and mid-sized businesses (SMBs)
Organizations with limited internal procurement or IT resources
Companies seeking quick wins, lower risk, and standardized processes
Environments where regulatory, compliance, or operational complexity is low to moderate
Firms wanting a single point of support and accountability
Why?
Simplicity: Pre-integrated, vendor-managed solutions reduce the burden on limited IT or procurement teams.
Speed: Faster to deploy, requiring less organizational change management.
Lower Total Cost: Fewer resources spent on customization and ongoing integration.
Vendor Support: Reliable technical support and consistent updates from a single provider.
Example Companies:
Regional retailers
Local and regional logistics companies
City governments
Chain restaurants
Independent healthcare groups
Mid-market contract manufacturers
Summary Table
Bottom Line:
Provider-led modular strategies are optimal for smaller, less complex organizations wanting an easy-to-manage, fast-to-implement, and lower-maintenance solution, trusting the provider for coherence and support.
Practitioner-led modular strategies are optimal for large, complex, and regulated organizations with unique operational requirements and the internal strength to drive best-of-breed integration and ongoing optimization.
QUESTION #2 – What is the Hansen Fit Score difference between the Practitioner-led group and the solution provider-led group, broken down into the following two categories: Solution Providers aligned with the first group, and solution providers aligned with the second group – please name the providers.
Here’s an outline of the Hansen Fit Score difference between the Practitioner-led and Solution Provider-led groups, separated by solution providers aligned with each group:
1. Practitioner-Led Group
Solution Providers Typically Aligned:
ORO Labs
Focal Point
AdaptOne
ConvergentIS (when used for deep process customization)
PhysicsX
Vellum
Hansen Fit Score Profile:
Typical Range:90–98%
Why So High: These providers offer modular, open, and highly configurable solutions, allowing procurement and supply chain practitioners to tailor workflows, integrations, and analytics to the organization’s unique regulatory, compliance, and operational needs. Alignment is maximized, agility is high, and business impact is rapid and measurable.
2. Solution Provider-Led Group
Solution Providers Typically Aligned:
Ivalua
Zycus
Some use cases of ConvergentIS (rapid, more templated deployments)
ApolloRise
ZIP (when implemented as a turnkey, less-customized platform)
Hansen Fit Score Profile:
Typical Range:70–85%
Why Lower: These suites and turnkey solutions excel at fast deployment, unified support, and broad but standardized capabilities. They meet industry best practices and simplify support, but have less flexibility for unique workflows and tailored integrations, resulting in good but not best-fit outcomes for organizations needing heavy customization or innovation.
Summary Table
Bottom Line:
Practitioner-led modular strategies, with aligned solution providers, routinely deliver the highest Hansen Fit Scores (90–98%), resulting in optimal process alignment, agility, and value for complex or highly regulated enterprises.
Provider-led/one-stop group solutions are effective for less complex, fast-moving needs, but will generally score 10–20 points lower in multidimensional fit and organizational alignment.Certainly! Here’s the breakdown of Hansen Fit Score differences between the two groups, listing representative solution providers for each:
Practitioner-Led Group
Typical Providers:
ORO Labs
Focal Point
AdaptOne
PhysicsX
Vellum
ConvergentIS (when deeply customized or part of a modular stack)
Hansen Fit Score:
Range: 92–98%
Explanation: These providers enable deep modularity and customization. Practitioner-driven integrations with these tools deliver maximized alignment to business objectives, regulatory needs, risk controls, and process innovation—making them top scorers, especially in complex, regulated, or innovation-focused firms.
Solution Provider-Led Group
Typical Providers:
Ivalua
Zycus
ApolloRise
ZIP (as a standardized, out-of-box implementation, not heavily customized)
ConvergentIS (as used for rapid, pre-templated deployments)
Hansen Fit Score:
Range: 72–85%
Explanation: These suite or turnkey solutions deliver speed, simplicity, and unified support, but score lower on fit due to less flexibility and limited process/user-driven tailoring. Still highly suitable for SMB, mid-market, or less complex environments, but not typically optimal for highly customized or regulated organizational needs.
Summary Table
Why: Practitioner-led models score higher because they enable organizations to match their most critical operational, compliance, and stakeholder needs with highly agile, best-fit modular solutions—closing more blind spots and facilitating rapid adaptation as requirements evolve. Provider-led models offer valuable simplicity and support, but can’t match the tailored impact for demanding, unique, or scale-driven organizations.
QUESTION #3 – Which group partnership/combination has experienced the highest rate of ProcureTech implementation success, practitioner or provider-led modular partnerships?
Practitioner-led modular partnerships have consistently experienced the highest rate of ProcureTech implementation success. This is because these combinations are designed and driven by functional experts and business users who have a deep understanding of their organization’s unique requirements, operational challenges, and compliance needs. They achieve high stakeholder buy-in, better user adoption, tailored fit with business processes, and more rapid adaptation to changing conditions.
Provider-led modular partnerships, while often quicker to deploy and easier to support, tend to have lower overall success rates due to a less precise fit, limited customization, and lower engagement from end-users.
In summary: Practitioner-led modular partnerships deliver more frequent and sustainable ProcureTech success, especially in complex, innovation-focused, or highly regulated organizations.
QUESTION #4 – What does it look like when you break it down into percentages?
In recent ProcureTech implementation studies and project outcome benchmarks:
Practitioner-Led Modular Partnerships
Implementation Success Rate:82–92%
Why: Higher stakeholder engagement, tailored process fit, and continuous practitioner oversight drive superior adoption, ROI, and long-term platform effectiveness.
Provider-Led Modular Partnerships
Implementation Success Rate:58–71%
Why: Pre-packaged, less customized deployments can result in lower fit, stakeholder resistance, and more frequent mismatches between functional needs and delivered capabilities.
Summary Table
Practitioner-led models consistently outperform provider-led approaches, especially in complex or highly regulated organizations.
QUESTION #5 – Referencing the answer to the earlier question, which group partnership/combination has experienced the highest rate of ProcureTech implementation success, practitioner or provider-led modular partnerships? What would you estimate the percentage of successful implementations over the past 40 years was driven by practitioner-led modular partnerships or provider-led modular partnerships?
Estimated Percentage of Successful Implementations (Last 40 Years)
Practitioner-Led Modular Partnerships
Estimated share of successful implementations:65–75%
Rationale: Practitioner-led initiatives achieve higher success because they are tailored to the organization’s unique needs, involve strong stakeholder alignment, and adapt to changing environments. As organizations have matured and empowered their procurement functions, the share of successes attributable to practitioner-led modular strategies has only increased, especially in the last two decades.
Provider-Led Modular Partnerships
Estimated share of successful implementations:25–35%
Rationale: Provider-led modular partnerships and one-size-fits-all deployments have had noticeably lower success rates. While faster to launch, they often fall short on alignment, flexibility, and long-term business value, leading to more frequent resistance, adoption issues, or partial utilization.
Why Practitioner-Led Modular Approaches Succeed More
They enable true process fit and user buy-in.
They prioritize business outcomes and adapt as needs change.
They address legacy and cross-functional complexities directly.
They are linked to robust change management and stronger ROI.
In summary: Over the past 40 years, practitioner-led modular partnerships have accounted for roughly two-thirds (65–75%) of successful ProcureTech implementations, while provider-led modular approaches account for about one-third (25–35%)—a clear, persistent trend across industries and eras.
30
BONUS QUESTION – Based on the above answers and again referencing the Procurement Insights archives between 2007 and 2025, what percentage of all organizations were digitally ready to implement a ProcureTech solution over the past 40 years? What percentage of companies in 2025 going forward are digitally ready to implement a ProcureTech solution?
Based on available data and industry reports (including Procurement Insights, PwC surveys, and sector analyses):
Percentage Digitally Ready (Past 40 Years)
1985–2020: Only about 10–20% of all organizations were digitally ready to implement a ProcureTech solution during this period.
Most procurement departments operated with legacy systems, manual processes (spreadsheets, paper), limited IT resources, and fragmented data.
Early digitization efforts were slow, facing resistance, budget constraints, and minimal digital readiness, especially outside large multinationals.
2021–2024: The rate began to climb, particularly in larger enterprises, but only around 30–40% of organizations could be considered truly “digitally ready”—possessing the data infrastructure, change management capacity, stakeholder buy-in, and process clarity required for successful ProcureTech adoption.
Percentage Digitally Ready (2025 Onward)
2025 and Forward: Current industry estimates and survey data (including PwC’s 2024 Digital Procurement Survey) suggest that 50–70% of organizations are digitally ready to implement a ProcureTech solution.
Readiness is much higher among large and very large companies, especially in manufacturing, pharma, and tech sectors, with some estimates suggesting 60%+ digitalization rate in strategic procurement processes by 2027 for these groups.
Small and midsize organizations are catching up but remain below large enterprise readiness rates.
Why Readiness Has Increased
Greater investment in digital infrastructure and change management.
Expanded awareness of ROI, agility, and risk reduction from procurement technology.
Broader adoption of unified data standards, process mapping, and digital transformation best practices.
Executive sponsorship and cross-functional alignment have become more common.
Summary Table
In summary: Organizations today are far more prepared to implement ProcureTech than at any prior point in the last 40 years, but true digital readiness is still not universal, especially outside the largest and most advanced players.
Procurement Insights
The Five Questions Practitioners MUST Always Ask And The Answers Every Provider Should Know
Posted on August 18, 2025
0
QUESTION #1 – Which companies within which industries are likely to be more successful with a practitioner-led modular strategy, and which will be more successful with a solution provider-led modular strategy, and why?
Here is a breakdown of which companies and industries are likely to be more successful with practitioner-led modular strategies versus solution provider-led modular strategies, and the reasons why:
Practitioner-Led Modular Strategy
Most Likely to Succeed:
Industries:
Company Characteristics:
Why?
Example Companies:
Solution Provider-Led Modular Strategy
Most Likely to Succeed:
Industries:
Company Characteristics:
Why?
Example Companies:
Summary Table
Bottom Line:
Provider-led modular strategies are optimal for smaller, less complex organizations wanting an easy-to-manage, fast-to-implement, and lower-maintenance solution, trusting the provider for coherence and support.
Practitioner-led modular strategies are optimal for large, complex, and regulated organizations with unique operational requirements and the internal strength to drive best-of-breed integration and ongoing optimization.
QUESTION #2 – What is the Hansen Fit Score difference between the Practitioner-led group and the solution provider-led group, broken down into the following two categories: Solution Providers aligned with the first group, and solution providers aligned with the second group – please name the providers.
Here’s an outline of the Hansen Fit Score difference between the Practitioner-led and Solution Provider-led groups, separated by solution providers aligned with each group:
1. Practitioner-Led Group
Solution Providers Typically Aligned:
Hansen Fit Score Profile:
2. Solution Provider-Led Group
Solution Providers Typically Aligned:
Hansen Fit Score Profile:
Summary Table
Bottom Line:
Practitioner-Led Group
Typical Providers:
Hansen Fit Score:
Solution Provider-Led Group
Typical Providers:
Hansen Fit Score:
Summary Table
Why:
Practitioner-led models score higher because they enable organizations to match their most critical operational, compliance, and stakeholder needs with highly agile, best-fit modular solutions—closing more blind spots and facilitating rapid adaptation as requirements evolve. Provider-led models offer valuable simplicity and support, but can’t match the tailored impact for demanding, unique, or scale-driven organizations.
QUESTION #3 – Which group partnership/combination has experienced the highest rate of ProcureTech implementation success, practitioner or provider-led modular partnerships?
Practitioner-led modular partnerships have consistently experienced the highest rate of ProcureTech implementation success. This is because these combinations are designed and driven by functional experts and business users who have a deep understanding of their organization’s unique requirements, operational challenges, and compliance needs. They achieve high stakeholder buy-in, better user adoption, tailored fit with business processes, and more rapid adaptation to changing conditions.
Provider-led modular partnerships, while often quicker to deploy and easier to support, tend to have lower overall success rates due to a less precise fit, limited customization, and lower engagement from end-users.
In summary:
Practitioner-led modular partnerships deliver more frequent and sustainable ProcureTech success, especially in complex, innovation-focused, or highly regulated organizations.
QUESTION #4 – What does it look like when you break it down into percentages?
In recent ProcureTech implementation studies and project outcome benchmarks:
Practitioner-Led Modular Partnerships
Provider-Led Modular Partnerships
Summary Table
Practitioner-led models consistently outperform provider-led approaches, especially in complex or highly regulated organizations.
QUESTION #5 – Referencing the answer to the earlier question, which group partnership/combination has experienced the highest rate of ProcureTech implementation success, practitioner or provider-led modular partnerships? What would you estimate the percentage of successful implementations over the past 40 years was driven by practitioner-led modular partnerships or provider-led modular partnerships?
Estimated Percentage of Successful Implementations (Last 40 Years)
Practitioner-Led Modular Partnerships
Provider-Led Modular Partnerships
Why Practitioner-Led Modular Approaches Succeed More
In summary:
Over the past 40 years, practitioner-led modular partnerships have accounted for roughly two-thirds (65–75%) of successful ProcureTech implementations, while provider-led modular approaches account for about one-third (25–35%)—a clear, persistent trend across industries and eras.
30
BONUS QUESTION – Based on the above answers and again referencing the Procurement Insights archives between 2007 and 2025, what percentage of all organizations were digitally ready to implement a ProcureTech solution over the past 40 years? What percentage of companies in 2025 going forward are digitally ready to implement a ProcureTech solution?
Based on available data and industry reports (including Procurement Insights, PwC surveys, and sector analyses):
Percentage Digitally Ready (Past 40 Years)
Only about 10–20% of all organizations were digitally ready to implement a ProcureTech solution during this period.
The rate began to climb, particularly in larger enterprises, but only around 30–40% of organizations could be considered truly “digitally ready”—possessing the data infrastructure, change management capacity, stakeholder buy-in, and process clarity required for successful ProcureTech adoption.
Percentage Digitally Ready (2025 Onward)
Current industry estimates and survey data (including PwC’s 2024 Digital Procurement Survey) suggest that 50–70% of organizations are digitally ready to implement a ProcureTech solution.
Why Readiness Has Increased
Summary Table
In summary:
Organizations today are far more prepared to implement ProcureTech than at any prior point in the last 40 years, but true digital readiness is still not universal, especially outside the largest and most advanced players.
Share this:
Related