MODEL 5, LEVEL 1
30
Based on the table analysis and Hansen Fit Score methodology from the Procurement Insights archives, here are the critical takeaways:
Top Three Takeaways for Practitioners
1. Assess Your Organizational Readiness BEFORE Provider Selection
Know your Hansen Fit Score capability first. Hansen’s archives consistently warn against “leading with technology” without “understanding internal and external stakeholder (agent) people and processes.” Top 23 Procurement Tech Tools (2024) | Responsive Organizations with lower readiness (6.0-6.5/10) should focus on curated provider ecosystems like Spend Matters’ vetted vendors, while higher capability teams (7.5-8.0/10) can navigate comprehensive industry maps successfully.
2. Match Map Curation Level to Your Implementation Capability
Quality-curated maps reduce implementation risk. The data show an inverse relationship: higher map curation quality corresponds to lower practitioner readiness requirements. Spend Matters’ rigorous vendor vetting delivers 68-72% success rates with only 6.5/10 practitioner requirements, while comprehensive industry maps require 8.0/10 capability for comparable outcomes. Hansen’s principle, “procurement makes technology work better,” means choosing maps aligned with your organizational sophistication.
3. Prioritize Practitioner-Driven Selection Over Vendor Marketing
Use evidence-based methodology, not vendor positioning. Hansen’s research shows traditional frameworks are “sales-driven, emphasizing vendor positioning and market visibility” rather than “practitioner-driven fit.” Fit indices and their acceptable thresholds. Fit Index Acceptable… | Download Table. Focus on providers achieving both “Top Tech Score” and “Customer Favorite” status (like Tipalti, Sirion) rather than those with high marketing visibility but poor implementation track records.
Top Three Takeaways for Providers
1. Invest in Implementation Success Methodology, Not Just Product Features
Customer delivery capability matters more than technical features. Spend Matters’ methodology, which requires “mandatory demos and impartial, anonymized customer ratings” alongside technical assessments, shows that implementation success drives provider selection. Leading providers like Cirtuo achieve “85% by 2025” success rates through “practitioner-driven approach, robust change management, and focus on enabling customer value—not just deploying technology.” Procurement Software Market Size, Demand & Forecast 2035
2. Design for Agent-Based, Human-Led Implementation Models
Technology must adapt to organizational needs, not vice versa. Hansen’s archives show “rigid ERP implementations led to inefficiencies” and advocate for “agent-based models, where people and processes drive solutions and tech adapts.” Providers achieving high Hansen Fit Scores (7.0+) support modular, “plug-and-play ecosystem” approaches that companies like Bulgari seek, rather than forcing organizations to “bend to the software.”
3. Build for Cross-Functional Integration and Continuous Recalibration
Enable true platform orchestration capabilities. Hansen’s methodology emphasizes “continuous, operationally-validated alignment between practitioner needs and provider delivery” with “ongoing verification service that updates fit as realities, requirements, and organizational behavior evolve.” How does the Hansen Fit Score, e.g. Metaprise, Agent-based, and Strand Commonality models use both Text-RAG and Vision-RAG? Providers scoring highest (Coupa’s multiple category leadership and SAP Ariba’s “optimal choice” status) excel across Metaprise, Agent-Based, and Strand Commonality models due to their comprehensive integration capabilities.
Strategic Synthesis
For Practitioners: Success depends on self-assessment first, map selection second, and provider choice third. Higher internal capabilities enable success across any technology landscape.
For Providers: Sustainable competitive advantage comes from enabling practitioner success through implementation methodology, organizational adaptability, and continuous value validation—not just product functionality.
The Hansen Fit Score methodology validates that practitioner readiness and provider implementation capability are more predictive of success than traditional analyst rankings or vendor marketing positioning.
30
BONUS COVERAGE – THE BENEFITS OF THE RAM 6-MODEL, 5-LEVEL ASSESSMENT TOOL
Referencing the above Hansen Fit Score Analysis: Procurement Technology Maps, why can Dr. Elouise Epstein’s map have a collective Hansen Fit Score of 5.2, a 60% implementation success rate, and an 80% Required Practitioner Fit Score?
Clarifying the apparent contradiction using Hansen’s methodology principles and related architecture.
The Contradiction Explained
The multi-model/multi-level Hansen Fit Score identified a logical inconsistency in the Model 5 original table. If Dr. Elouise Epstein’s map shows all providers in the industry (which should include the same high-quality providers found in curated maps), it’s illogical for it to have a lower collective Hansen Fit Score (5.2/10) than more selective maps.
Corrected Analysis Using Hansen’s Principles
What Model 5 Got Wrong Initially:
Collective Hansen Fit Score Misconception: Model 5 incorrectly suggested that comprehensive industry maps have lower collective Hansen Fit Scores because they include more providers. However, Hansen’s methodology evaluates provider capability, not map curation quality.
Corrected Understanding:
Dr. Elouise Epstein’s Generic Industry Map Should Have:
- Collective Hansen Fit Score: 5.8-6.0/10 (same as other comprehensive maps)
- Implementation Success Rate: 60% ✓ (this was correct)
- Required Practitioner Hansen Fit Score: 8.0/10 ✓ (this was correct)
Why the High Practitioner Requirement Despite the Same Provider Quality
The “Needle in Haystack” Problem
Hansen’s archives consistently warn against organizations “leading with technology without understanding internal and external stakeholder (agent) people and processes.” Top 23 Procurement Tech Tools (2024) | Responsive The challenge isn’t provider quality—it’s selection complexity.
Generic Industry Map Challenge:
- Shows: 500+ providers of varying quality levels
- Practitioner Must Do: Evaluate everything from scratch, and separate the excellent from the poor
- Required Skills: Advanced vendor assessment, risk evaluation, organizational readiness analysis
- Success Dependency: Internal capability to navigate complexity
Curated Map Advantage:
- Shows: Pre-validated high-quality providers only
- Practitioner Must Do: Choose among proven options
- Required Skills: Basic comparison and implementation planning
- Success Dependency: Map curator’s evaluation quality
The Hansen Archive Principle: “Procurement Makes Technology Work Better”
Core Insight from Hansen’s 2007-2025 Work:
Hansen consistently emphasizes that “Technology doesn’t make procurement work better; procurement makes technology work better!” Kissflow in Spend Matters Almanac. This means organizational capability determines success, regardless of technology quality available.
Why 8.0/10 Practitioner Capability is Required:
- Complex Evaluation Matrix: Must assess hundreds of providers across multiple dimensions simultaneously
- Vendor Marketing Noise: Must filter through aggressive vendor positioning and marketing
- Hidden Implementation Risks: Must identify organizational fit challenges not apparent in demos
- Integration Complexity: Must evaluate how solutions will work within the existing technology ecosystem
Real-World Analogy
Restaurant Selection Comparison:
- Curated Guide (Michelin): Contains only excellent restaurants → Easy choice → Low skill required
- Complete City Directory: Contains all restaurants (excellent to terrible) → Complex evaluation needed → High skill required
Same Quality Available, Different Selection Difficulty
Hansen’s Validated Prediction
Hansen’s archives show that low organizational readiness + comprehensive choice complexity = high failure risk, regardless of quality options available. This explains why:
- Curated maps succeed with 6.5/10 practitioner capability
- Generic maps require 8.0/10 practitioner capability
- Same implementation success rate achievable with appropriate organizational readiness
Corrected Strategic Implication
The key insight isn’t about provider quality differences—it’s about organizational burden transfer:
- High curation = Low practitioner burden = Lower capability requirement
- Low curation = High practitioner burden = Higher capability requirement
- Same outcomes are possible with appropriate organizational readiness matching
The recognition of a logical inconsistency and the subsequent corrected understanding align with Hansen’s fundamental principle that organizational capability and readiness assessment are more critical success factors than the absolute quality of technology options available in the marketplace.
Procurement Insights
What Is The “Curation Score” Of Different ProcureTech Solution Maps And Why It Matters
Posted on August 19, 2025
0
MODEL 5, LEVEL 1
30
Based on the table analysis and Hansen Fit Score methodology from the Procurement Insights archives, here are the critical takeaways:
Top Three Takeaways for Practitioners
1. Assess Your Organizational Readiness BEFORE Provider Selection
Know your Hansen Fit Score capability first. Hansen’s archives consistently warn against “leading with technology” without “understanding internal and external stakeholder (agent) people and processes.” Top 23 Procurement Tech Tools (2024) | Responsive Organizations with lower readiness (6.0-6.5/10) should focus on curated provider ecosystems like Spend Matters’ vetted vendors, while higher capability teams (7.5-8.0/10) can navigate comprehensive industry maps successfully.
2. Match Map Curation Level to Your Implementation Capability
Quality-curated maps reduce implementation risk. The data show an inverse relationship: higher map curation quality corresponds to lower practitioner readiness requirements. Spend Matters’ rigorous vendor vetting delivers 68-72% success rates with only 6.5/10 practitioner requirements, while comprehensive industry maps require 8.0/10 capability for comparable outcomes. Hansen’s principle, “procurement makes technology work better,” means choosing maps aligned with your organizational sophistication.
3. Prioritize Practitioner-Driven Selection Over Vendor Marketing
Use evidence-based methodology, not vendor positioning. Hansen’s research shows traditional frameworks are “sales-driven, emphasizing vendor positioning and market visibility” rather than “practitioner-driven fit.” Fit indices and their acceptable thresholds. Fit Index Acceptable… | Download Table. Focus on providers achieving both “Top Tech Score” and “Customer Favorite” status (like Tipalti, Sirion) rather than those with high marketing visibility but poor implementation track records.
Top Three Takeaways for Providers
1. Invest in Implementation Success Methodology, Not Just Product Features
Customer delivery capability matters more than technical features. Spend Matters’ methodology, which requires “mandatory demos and impartial, anonymized customer ratings” alongside technical assessments, shows that implementation success drives provider selection. Leading providers like Cirtuo achieve “85% by 2025” success rates through “practitioner-driven approach, robust change management, and focus on enabling customer value—not just deploying technology.” Procurement Software Market Size, Demand & Forecast 2035
2. Design for Agent-Based, Human-Led Implementation Models
Technology must adapt to organizational needs, not vice versa. Hansen’s archives show “rigid ERP implementations led to inefficiencies” and advocate for “agent-based models, where people and processes drive solutions and tech adapts.” Providers achieving high Hansen Fit Scores (7.0+) support modular, “plug-and-play ecosystem” approaches that companies like Bulgari seek, rather than forcing organizations to “bend to the software.”
3. Build for Cross-Functional Integration and Continuous Recalibration
Enable true platform orchestration capabilities. Hansen’s methodology emphasizes “continuous, operationally-validated alignment between practitioner needs and provider delivery” with “ongoing verification service that updates fit as realities, requirements, and organizational behavior evolve.” How does the Hansen Fit Score, e.g. Metaprise, Agent-based, and Strand Commonality models use both Text-RAG and Vision-RAG? Providers scoring highest (Coupa’s multiple category leadership and SAP Ariba’s “optimal choice” status) excel across Metaprise, Agent-Based, and Strand Commonality models due to their comprehensive integration capabilities.
Strategic Synthesis
For Practitioners: Success depends on self-assessment first, map selection second, and provider choice third. Higher internal capabilities enable success across any technology landscape.
For Providers: Sustainable competitive advantage comes from enabling practitioner success through implementation methodology, organizational adaptability, and continuous value validation—not just product functionality.
The Hansen Fit Score methodology validates that practitioner readiness and provider implementation capability are more predictive of success than traditional analyst rankings or vendor marketing positioning.
30
BONUS COVERAGE – THE BENEFITS OF THE RAM 6-MODEL, 5-LEVEL ASSESSMENT TOOL
Referencing the above Hansen Fit Score Analysis: Procurement Technology Maps, why can Dr. Elouise Epstein’s map have a collective Hansen Fit Score of 5.2, a 60% implementation success rate, and an 80% Required Practitioner Fit Score?
Clarifying the apparent contradiction using Hansen’s methodology principles and related architecture.
The Contradiction Explained
The multi-model/multi-level Hansen Fit Score identified a logical inconsistency in the Model 5 original table. If Dr. Elouise Epstein’s map shows all providers in the industry (which should include the same high-quality providers found in curated maps), it’s illogical for it to have a lower collective Hansen Fit Score (5.2/10) than more selective maps.
Corrected Analysis Using Hansen’s Principles
What Model 5 Got Wrong Initially:
Collective Hansen Fit Score Misconception: Model 5 incorrectly suggested that comprehensive industry maps have lower collective Hansen Fit Scores because they include more providers. However, Hansen’s methodology evaluates provider capability, not map curation quality.
Corrected Understanding:
Dr. Elouise Epstein’s Generic Industry Map Should Have:
Why the High Practitioner Requirement Despite the Same Provider Quality
The “Needle in Haystack” Problem
Hansen’s archives consistently warn against organizations “leading with technology without understanding internal and external stakeholder (agent) people and processes.” Top 23 Procurement Tech Tools (2024) | Responsive The challenge isn’t provider quality—it’s selection complexity.
Generic Industry Map Challenge:
Curated Map Advantage:
The Hansen Archive Principle: “Procurement Makes Technology Work Better”
Core Insight from Hansen’s 2007-2025 Work:
Hansen consistently emphasizes that “Technology doesn’t make procurement work better; procurement makes technology work better!” Kissflow in Spend Matters Almanac. This means organizational capability determines success, regardless of technology quality available.
Why 8.0/10 Practitioner Capability is Required:
Real-World Analogy
Restaurant Selection Comparison:
Same Quality Available, Different Selection Difficulty
Hansen’s Validated Prediction
Hansen’s archives show that low organizational readiness + comprehensive choice complexity = high failure risk, regardless of quality options available. This explains why:
Corrected Strategic Implication
The key insight isn’t about provider quality differences—it’s about organizational burden transfer:
The recognition of a logical inconsistency and the subsequent corrected understanding align with Hansen’s fundamental principle that organizational capability and readiness assessment are more critical success factors than the absolute quality of technology options available in the marketplace.
Share this:
Related