Tanya Ward Get’s It Right (But Getting It Right And Real-World Execution Are Two Different Things)

Here is the link to a post by Tanya Ward on KPIs.

THREE QUESTIONS: RAM 2025 (MODELS 5, 6, 2, 1, 3/Level 1 of 5)

QUESTION 1: Referencing the attached documents/images: what is a short summary of the content, and accessing the Procurement Insights 2007 to 2025 archives, how does this align with KPI evolution and the validity of the current model in the article, and how would it align with the Hansen Fit Score?

QUESTION 2: What are the challenges with execution in the real world of Tanya’s model?

QUESTION 3: How can the Hansen Fit Score and Metaprise, Agent-based, Stand Commonality models overcome the above obstacles, also referencing the following Procurement Insights post specifically: https://procureinsights.com/2023/10/23/are-you-chasing-solutions-or-solving-problems-part-1-of-3/

THE ANSWER:

Analysis of Tanya Ward’s KPI Framework

Strengths:

• Behavioral Focus: Emphasizes that KPIs should drive behavior change, not just track performance
• Quality over Quantity: Advocates for fewer, more meaningful metrics rather than comprehensive dashboards
• Strategic Alignment: Starts with fundamental questions about what needs improvement
• Practical Wisdom: Acknowledges the common pitfall of “defensive metrics” created to appease stakeholders
• Comprehensive Coverage: The visual framework covers key procurement areas holistically

Weaknesses:

• Lacks Implementation Guidance: Doesn’t provide specific methodology for identifying the “right” KPIs
• Subjective Selection: “Hurting a little” and “provoking change” are vague criteria
• Industry Variation: One-size-fits-all approach may not account for sector-specific needs
• Change Management Blind Spot: Doesn’t address how to transition from existing KPI systems

Practical Adoption Obstacles:

1. Organizational Inertia: Existing reporting structures and stakeholder expectations
2. Risk Aversion: Leadership comfort with familiar metrics, even if ineffective
3. System Limitations: ERP and procurement systems often dictate available metrics
4. Skill Gaps: Teams may lack analytical capabilities to identify meaningful indicators
5. Political Dynamics: Different stakeholders want different measures of success

Alignment Assessment

Strong Philosophical Alignment: Both Ward and Hansen share fundamental critiques of traditional procurement measurement:

• Both reject “equation-based” approaches where technology drives behavior rather than solving real problems
• Both emphasize that traditional KPIs “focus on departmental efficiency and cost control” rather than transformation capabilities
• Ward’s “metrics without meaning” mirrors Hansen’s criticism that traditional analyst frameworks miss “contextual, process-first, predictive” elements

Key Differences in Implementation:

Tanya Ward’s Approach:

• Simplicity: Advocates for fewer, more impactful KPIs that “hurt a little” and force hard conversations
• Behavioral Focus: Emphasizes that KPIs should change behavior, not just track performance
• Question-Led: Start with “What do we actually want to improve?” rather than available data

Hansen Fit Score Methodology:

• Multidimensional Assessment: Uses “Metaprise, Agent-based, and Strand Commonality models” for continuous, operationally-validated alignment
• Dynamic Recalibration: Provides ongoing “inference, signal triangulation, and proxy modeling” to detect “strand drift”
• Predictive Foresight: Focuses on “conditions necessary for future procurement success” rather than historical performance

Critical Analysis of Ward’s Approach

Additional Strengths (Beyond Initial Assessment):

• Change Management Focus: Unlike traditional approaches, it addresses the human element of resistance to metrics
• Executive Communication: Provides a clear narrative for why current KPI approaches fail to get buy-in
• Practical Wisdom: Acknowledges the political realities of boardroom dynamics

Enhanced Weaknesses:

• Limited Predictive Power: Lacks Hansen’s forward-looking capability to anticipate implementation challenges
• No Systematic Framework: Unlike Hansen’s structured models, it provides philosophical guidance without methodological rigor
• Single-Dimensional: Focuses primarily on internal procurement behavior, missing Hansen’s cross-functional stakeholder analysis

Real-World Adoption Obstacles Enhanced

Based on Hansen’s insights, additional barriers include:

1. Stakeholder Complexity: Ward’s approach doesn’t account for how “other stakeholders or agents” like field service technicians, suppliers, and customs impact procurement success
2. Technology Integration: Hansen’s case study showed that even with perfect KPIs, “siloed thinking meant that no matter how well the technology worked, technology underperformance and failure were inevitable outcomes.”
3. Measurement Sophistication: Organizations may lack the capability for Hansen’s “evidence-based, adaptive scoring” or Ward’s intuitive “hurt a little” assessment

Synthesis: Best of Both Approaches

Optimal Framework Integration:

• Start with Ward’s Philosophy: Use her questioning approach to identify what truly matters
• Apply Hansen’s Methodology: Implement “continuous, operationally-validated alignment” through systematic measurement
• Combine Behavioral + Predictive: Ward’s focus on behavior change with Hansen’s anticipation of future challenges

Practical Implementation Roadmap:

1. Phase 1 (Ward): Eliminate “wallpaper” KPIs through stakeholder questioning
2. Phase 2 (Hansen): Implement “practitioner-centric design” with cross-functional alignment assessment
3. Phase 3 (Hybrid): Establish continuous recalibration to prevent “strand drift” while maintaining Ward’s behavioral focus

Conclusion

Ward’s approach provides essential philosophical foundation and change management insight, while Hansen’s methodology offers the systematic rigor needed for complex, technology-enabled procurement transformation. Hansen’s framework addresses Ward’s limitations by providing “transparency and methodological rigor” while maintaining her core principle that metrics must drive meaningful change.

The most effective approach would combine Ward’s intuitive wisdom about KPI psychology with Hansen’s sophisticated measurement architecture, creating a framework that is both behaviorally sound and predictively powerful.

30