Here Is My Immediate Take On The AOP Acquisition Of ProcureTech 100 And The Founders Circle

EDITOR’S NOTE: After more than 40 years in high-tech and procurement, I have witnessed numerous events and have also documented them in the proprietary Procurement Insights Archives—a substantial amount of which I have never shared publicly. In fact, these insights do contribute to the unique attributes that contribute to the accuracy of the Hansen Fit Score.

Procurement Insights – “the institutional memory of the procurement industry.”

It is through this comprehensive and all-encompassing lens that I will provide this Model 1/Level 1 assessment of the Art of Procurement (AOP) acquisition of the ProcureTech 100 and Founders Circle per Philip Ideson’s comment in an earlier post on LinkedIn. For the record, here is the comment exchange:

Here is just one of the many questions I have – and I will be asking more:

What is the likelihood of potential conflicts of interest arising and the risk of a blockout by a monopoly competitor? In short, to what degree should solution providers and practitioners be concerned about an undisclosed, non-arm’s-length situation?

MODEL 1, LEVEL 1 ASSESSMENT

Procurement Insights itself has been flagged as a “watch point” in recent commentary. Let me break it down for you in terms of likelihood, risks, and what it means for solution providers and practitioners.

---

1. Likelihood of Conflicts of Interest

• Structural Overlap
  • Fact: Lance Younger, the architect of ProcureTech, is now EVP at ORO Labs.
  • Fact: AOP (Art of Procurement) now controls ProcureTech100 and Founders’ Circle, but the judging panel is anonymous and undisclosed.
  • Result: Even if independence is claimed, the perception of influence exists because the founder of one entity (ProcureTech) now holds a leadership role in a provider (ORO) that is in theory “ranked” or “recognized” by the program.
• Opaque Governance
  • Since the identities of CPO judges are not disclosed, it’s impossible to verify whether any of them come from ORO Labs’ customers.
  • This lack of transparency makes perceived conflict of interest almost inevitable, even if no direct conflict exists.

Likelihood assessment:

• Direct conflict of interest (actual bias in rankings) → Moderate, given non-disclosure.
• Perceived conflict of interest (market suspicion) → High, simply because of the optics and overlap.

---

2. Risk of Monopoly or Blockout Dynamics

Procurement Insights has warned of an emerging “Triad” dynamic:

• ORO Labs (solution/orchestration platform)
• Art of Procurement + ProcureTech100 (recognition + exposure)
• Events like DPW (global stage)

This combination risks forming a closed loop:

• Providers that align with ORO/AOP/DPW get amplified visibility.
• Competitors risk being blocked out of attention and influence channels, regardless of merit.
• Buyers (practitioners) risk being subtly funneled toward preferred ecosystems.

Risk assessment:

• Short-term (1–2 years) → Moderate, as ORO is still scaling and AOP must prove impartiality.
• Long-term (3–5 years) → High, if unchecked, as network effects could centralize control of recognition + exposure + orchestration.

---

3. Degree of Concern for Providers and Practitioners

• For Solution Providers
  • Concern: Very High if you’re a direct competitor of ORO Labs, because the perception (or reality) of preferential treatment could impact recognition, investor confidence, and customer access.
  • Providers outside this ecosystem may need to invest more heavily in alternative analyst relationships or independent validation to avoid being eclipsed.
• For Practitioners (buyers)
  • Concern: Moderate to High because procurement leaders rely on rankings like ProcureTech100 as a filtering lens. If bias creeps in, selection decisions could be skewed toward a narrower set of vendors.
  • The bigger risk is groupthink: practitioners following rankings without realizing potential non-arm’s-length dynamics.

---

4. Summary Assessment

---

5. What To Watch / Safeguards Needed

• Full disclosure of practitioner judges and their affiliations.
• Separation of governance (e.g., independent board for ProcureTech100).
• Alternative channels (e.g., Procurement Insights, industry consortiums) to counterbalance influence.

---

Bottom line: Both solution providers and practitioners should be alert. While no explicit misconduct is proven, the optics of overlap and concentration of influence create a high perception risk and a moderate-to-high structural risk of conflicts or blockouts. The industry should push for greater transparency and independent governance to ensure trust.

30

BONUS COVERAGE (HEAT RISK MAP AND TIMELINE PROJECTIONS)

Here’s the Heat Risk Map visualizing the potential conflicts of interest and monopoly blockout risks:

• Solution Providers face the highest exposure, especially on perceived conflicts (5/5) and blockout risks (4/5).
• Practitioners are moderately exposed, but still at risk if rankings and insights skew market access (perceived conflict 4/5).
• Market Health overall is vulnerable to concentration of influence, with systemic blockout risk at 4/5.

Here’s the Timeline Projection (2025–2029) of conflict-of-interest and monopoly risks:

• Solution Providers: Risks climb steeply, reaching 5/5 by 2029, as ecosystem consolidation could marginalize competitors outside the AOP–ProcureTech100–ORO orbit.
• Practitioners: Risks grow moderately, hitting ~4.2/5 by 2029, as overreliance on potentially biased rankings could narrow vendor choice and weaken innovation.
• Market Health: Systemic risk rises steadily to ~4.7/5, reflecting an increasing danger of concentrated influence shaping both recognition and adoption pathways.