How does a 2010 SAP presentation on Sourcing and Procurement predict their ability to deliver an effective solution in 2025?

QUESTION: How does a 2010 SAP presentation on Sourcing and Procurement predict their ability to deliver an effective solution in 2025?

Based on my analysis of both the 2010 SAP document and current information about SAP’s procurement strategy, here’s how SAP’s sourcing and procurement approaches have evolved:

Major Strategic Changes from 2010 to 2025

From Basic Digital Transformation to AI-Driven Intelligence

In 2010, SAP’s focus was primarily on transitioning from manual, siloed procurement processes to basic digital platforms. The presentation emphasized simple metrics like “source-to-pay automation” and “spend under management.”

Today, SAP has shifted to AI-powered procurement with generative AI copilot Joule integrated into SAP Ariba solutions, automating up to 80% of routine processes and enabling procurement professionals to shift from tactical work to strategic decision-making.

From Deployment Flexibility to Ecosystem Integration

The 2010 presentation touted “deployment choices” (on-premise, hosted, on-demand) as a key differentiator. Current SAP strategy emphasizes a “triple crown of strategic procurement” – insights, planning, and action – creating continuous cycles of improvement through integrated solutions like SAP Spend Control Tower, SAP Ariba Category Management, and SAP Ariba Sourcing.

From Risk Management to Polycrisis Resilience

While 2010 focused on basic supplier risk management, today’s approach addresses geopolitical tensions affecting 67% of companies and comprehensive risk assessment frameworks using predictive analytics and AI.

Hansen Fit Score Analysis

The Hansen Fit Score is a practitioner-driven evaluation framework that measures how well ProcureTech solutions align with advanced procurement transformation models—specifically Metaprise, agent-based, and strand commonality principles. How does the Hansen Fit Score improve practitioner-provider outcomes versus Gartner, Spend Matters, Deloitte, McKinsey, and G2? | Procurement Insights.

SAP’s 2010 Model Hansen Fit Score: Estimated 4.5/10

Based on the Hansen methodology’s emphasis on organizational alignment, leadership profiles, and strategic risk management, SAP’s 2010 approach would likely score lower than 2025 because:

• Limited cross-functional collaboration tools
• Limited AI/automation capabilities
• Basic integration between modules
• Reactive rather than predictive analytics
• Manual, siloed decision-making processes

WHAT DOES THE TRENDING ANALYSIS INDICATE (2000 to 2025)

IMPORTANT NOTE:

The persistence of ProcureTech initiative failures despite SAP’s seeming adoption of a Hansen-influenced frameworks reveals several critical gaps between theoretical models and practical implementation:

The Adoption vs. Implementation Gap

SAP may reference Hansen’s principles, but there’s a difference between incorporating concepts into marketing materials and truly embedding them into organizational DNA. The evidence suggests SAP has adopted the language of Hansen’s models more than the substance. For instance, while SAP talks about “agent-based” systems, many implementations still follow 2010 rigid, top-down deployment patterns that Hansen explicitly critiqued.

Organizational Readiness Mismatch

Hansen’s Fit Score methodology emphasizes “organizational alignment, leadership profiles, and strategic risk management” How does the Hansen Fit Score and more specifically the Metaprise, Agent-based, Strand Commonality models position both procurement practitioners and ProcureTech solution providers to effectively respond to procurement demands in the polycrisis era? | Procurement Insights, but most organizations focus primarily on technology selection rather than internal readiness assessment.

Systemic Industry Problems

The research shows fundamental issues with current evaluation approaches: “Traditional approaches focus on what providers can do rather than what practitioners need” How does Hansen’s Fit Score Metaprise, Agent-based, Strand Commonality models make Gartner, McKinsey, Deloitte, and The Hackett Group’s information and research better? | Procurement Insights. Even with Hansen’s influence, the procurement technology market remains dominated by vendor-driven sales processes rather than practitioner-centric needs assessment.

Here are the results without the Methodology-Focus Evolution:

The critical takeaway is without the methodology evolution the gap between technology capability (blue line) and the implemention success rate (red line) widens significantly. This is the reason why the projected initiative failure rate fluctuates between the red-20% to orange 60%-range. However, both still fall far short of the technology capability-based blue-100% that many analyst firms and consultancies focus on. In my next post I will focus on Gartner, McKinsey, Deloitte, and IDC’s version of the graph below.