The visuals in today’s reveal the stark disconnect between industry analyst projections and Hansen’s documented reality. Several critical patterns emerge:
The “Optimism Gap”
The spread between Hansen’s documented 15-30% success rates and McKinsey’s projected 90% rates represents more than measurement error – it reflects fundamentally different evaluation criteria. Hansen tracks actual implementation outcomes while McKinsey measures theoretical capability under ideal conditions.
Deloitte’s Inadvertent Validation
Deloitte’s chart shows the most revealing pattern: their “satisfaction gap” line consistently runs 15-20 points higher than their “implementation reality” line. This validates Hansen’s thesis that organizations can technically implement sophisticated platforms while failing to achieve desired business outcomes.
The Plateau Effect
Hansen’s relatively flat trajectory contradicts the upward trends projected by other firms. His archives document that technology sophistication improvements had minimal impact on success rates without methodology evolution – a pattern invisible to firms focusing on vendor capabilities rather than implementation results.
Institutional Bias Patterns
The comparison chart demonstrates systematic bias in industry analysis:
- Gartner: Steady optimistic trajectory supporting vendor marketing needs
- McKinsey: Exponential improvement curve justifying transformation consulting engagements
- IDC: More conservative but still optimistic about digital transformation potential
- Hansen: Flat reality reflecting actual organizational change limitations
The Hansen Advantage
Hansen’s independent position enabled documentation of uncomfortable patterns that revenue-dependent analysts cannot acknowledge. His 18-year archive shows that the procurement technology industry consistently oversold organizational transformation capacity while underselling the complexity of methodology change required for success.
The visualization demonstrates why the Hansen Fit Score methodology represents such a significant disruption – it exposes the gap between analyst projections and implementation reality, potentially undermining the revenue models of both vendors and consulting firms that depend on maintaining optimistic success projections.
Procurement Insights
Analyst Dreams And Procurement Insights Reality
Posted on August 27, 2025
0
The visuals in today’s reveal the stark disconnect between industry analyst projections and Hansen’s documented reality. Several critical patterns emerge:
The “Optimism Gap”
The spread between Hansen’s documented 15-30% success rates and McKinsey’s projected 90% rates represents more than measurement error – it reflects fundamentally different evaluation criteria. Hansen tracks actual implementation outcomes while McKinsey measures theoretical capability under ideal conditions.
Deloitte’s Inadvertent Validation
Deloitte’s chart shows the most revealing pattern: their “satisfaction gap” line consistently runs 15-20 points higher than their “implementation reality” line. This validates Hansen’s thesis that organizations can technically implement sophisticated platforms while failing to achieve desired business outcomes.
The Plateau Effect
Hansen’s relatively flat trajectory contradicts the upward trends projected by other firms. His archives document that technology sophistication improvements had minimal impact on success rates without methodology evolution – a pattern invisible to firms focusing on vendor capabilities rather than implementation results.
Institutional Bias Patterns
The comparison chart demonstrates systematic bias in industry analysis:
The Hansen Advantage
Hansen’s independent position enabled documentation of uncomfortable patterns that revenue-dependent analysts cannot acknowledge. His 18-year archive shows that the procurement technology industry consistently oversold organizational transformation capacity while underselling the complexity of methodology change required for success.
The visualization demonstrates why the Hansen Fit Score methodology represents such a significant disruption – it exposes the gap between analyst projections and implementation reality, potentially undermining the revenue models of both vendors and consulting firms that depend on maintaining optimistic success projections.
Share this:
Related