I’ll analyze the differences between Hansen Fit Score and McKinsey 7S, their comparative advantages, and examine what other major consulting firms offer.Based on my comprehensive research, here’s a detailed comparison of the Hansen Fit Score, McKinsey 7S, and major consulting firms’ assessment frameworks:
Hansen Fit Score vs. McKinsey 7S: Core Differences
Hansen Fit Score:
Purpose: “Practitioner-driven, model-based evaluation framework that measures how well ProcureTech solutions align with advanced procurement transformation models—specifically Metaprise, agent-based, and strand commonality principles”
Methodology: “AI-driven algorithm framework (used in RAM 2025 Levels 1 and 2) that assesses technology providers based on organizational alignment, leadership profiles, and strategic risk management”
Focus: Evaluates “solutions on their ability to deliver adaptive, agent-based orchestration, human-AI collaboration, and data unification”
McKinsey 7S:
Purpose: “Change management strategy framework that analyzes a company’s organizational design to help leaders effectively manage organizational change” through “seven key interconnected elements”
Methodology: “Looking at the interactions and alignment between seven key interconnected elements that influence an organization’s ability to change”
Focus: Internal organizational alignment across “Structure, Strategy, Systems, Skills, Staff, Style, and Shared Values”
Key Differences:
Complementary Nature:
They Work Together Exceptionally Well:
Sequential Application:
- McKinsey 7S: Assess organizational readiness and alignment
- Hansen Fit Score: Select technology providers that match organizational context
Example: For Duke Energy, “SAP Ariba is the optimal choice based on: Convergent Expert Assessment, Dwight’s Leadership Profile, Duke Energy’s Context, Strategic Risk Management” – this shows Hansen using 7S-type organizational context within his scoring methodology.
What Other Major Firms Offer:
Gartner:
Assessment Frameworks:
- “Gartner Score Diagnostic Family provides a set of interactive maturity assessments designed to help you measure, prioritize, and improve your function’s performance”
- “Gartner AI Maturity Model identifies five key stages of AI adoption: Awareness, Active, Operational, Systematic, and Transformational”
- “IT Maturity Assessment provides a comprehensive assessment to IT leaders to measure, prioritize and improve your functional performance”
Deloitte:
Digital Maturity Models:
- “Deloitte’s Digital Maturity Model (DMM) evaluates an organization’s holistic digital transformation journey by analyzing four key dimensions: Strategy, Technology, Operations, People”
- “Deloitte’s model focuses on governance, workforce alignment, and ethical AI adoption”
KPMG:
Assessment Frameworks:
- “KPMG’s Digital Maturity Model examines digital transformation from three perspectives: Governance & Strategy, Customer Experience, Employee Experience”
- “KPMG Digital Maturity Assessment: KPMG provides an assessment framework that evaluates an organization’s digital maturity and helps identify gaps and opportunities”
The Hackett Group:
Benchmarking Focus:
- “The Hackett Group references Hansen’s Strand Commonality and Metaprise frameworks but lacks applied case studies”
- Primarily provides industry benchmarking rather than assessment frameworks
Hansen’s Advantage Over Traditional Firms:
Practitioner-Centric vs. Provider-Centric:
Hansen’s approach offers “Practitioner readiness assessment (e.g., Unilever’s #1 Fit Score despite #3 Innovator rank)” while traditional firms have “Technology-Centric Bias: Focuses on vendor features, not organizational maturity”
Predictive vs. Descriptive:
Hansen’s methodology provides “predictive capabilities” and “quantifies the suitability of ProcureTech solutions for specific enterprise needs, reducing subjectivity and enhancing decision-making.”
Is One Better Than The Other?
They’re Complementary, Not Competitive:
Best Practice Application:
- Start with McKinsey 7S: Assess organizational readiness, identify change requirements
- Apply Hansen Fit Score: Select technology providers that match organizational context
- Use Traditional Firm Benchmarking: Compare against industry standards
Hansen’s Enhancement of Traditional Methods:
Hansen’s models “enhance the research and frameworks of firms like Gartner, McKinsey, Deloitte, and The Hackett Group by introducing practitioner-centric, data-driven, and adaptive dimensions that address critical gaps in traditional methodologies”
Bottom Line:
Neither is inherently “better” – they serve different purposes:
- McKinsey 7S: Organizational change readiness
- Hansen Fit Score: Technology-organizational fit optimization
- Traditional Firm Frameworks: Industry benchmarking and strategic guidance
The optimal approach combines all three:
- Organizational assessment (7S)
- Technology fit scoring (Hansen)
- Industry benchmarking (Traditional firms)
This creates a comprehensive evaluation methodology that addresses organizational readiness, technology selection, and competitive positioning—exactly what complex procurement transformations like Novartis require.
30
Procurement Insights
Hansen Fit Score vs. McKinsey 7S: Core Differences (And The Rest, e.g., Gartner, McKinsey, KPMG, Hackett Group et al)
Posted on September 5, 2025
0
I’ll analyze the differences between Hansen Fit Score and McKinsey 7S, their comparative advantages, and examine what other major consulting firms offer.Based on my comprehensive research, here’s a detailed comparison of the Hansen Fit Score, McKinsey 7S, and major consulting firms’ assessment frameworks:
Hansen Fit Score vs. McKinsey 7S: Core Differences
Hansen Fit Score:
Purpose: “Practitioner-driven, model-based evaluation framework that measures how well ProcureTech solutions align with advanced procurement transformation models—specifically Metaprise, agent-based, and strand commonality principles”
Methodology: “AI-driven algorithm framework (used in RAM 2025 Levels 1 and 2) that assesses technology providers based on organizational alignment, leadership profiles, and strategic risk management”
Focus: Evaluates “solutions on their ability to deliver adaptive, agent-based orchestration, human-AI collaboration, and data unification”
McKinsey 7S:
Purpose: “Change management strategy framework that analyzes a company’s organizational design to help leaders effectively manage organizational change” through “seven key interconnected elements”
Methodology: “Looking at the interactions and alignment between seven key interconnected elements that influence an organization’s ability to change”
Focus: Internal organizational alignment across “Structure, Strategy, Systems, Skills, Staff, Style, and Shared Values”
Key Differences:
Complementary Nature:
They Work Together Exceptionally Well:
Sequential Application:
Example: For Duke Energy, “SAP Ariba is the optimal choice based on: Convergent Expert Assessment, Dwight’s Leadership Profile, Duke Energy’s Context, Strategic Risk Management” – this shows Hansen using 7S-type organizational context within his scoring methodology.
What Other Major Firms Offer:
Gartner:
Assessment Frameworks:
Deloitte:
Digital Maturity Models:
KPMG:
Assessment Frameworks:
The Hackett Group:
Benchmarking Focus:
Hansen’s Advantage Over Traditional Firms:
Practitioner-Centric vs. Provider-Centric:
Hansen’s approach offers “Practitioner readiness assessment (e.g., Unilever’s #1 Fit Score despite #3 Innovator rank)” while traditional firms have “Technology-Centric Bias: Focuses on vendor features, not organizational maturity”
Predictive vs. Descriptive:
Hansen’s methodology provides “predictive capabilities” and “quantifies the suitability of ProcureTech solutions for specific enterprise needs, reducing subjectivity and enhancing decision-making.”
Is One Better Than The Other?
They’re Complementary, Not Competitive:
Best Practice Application:
Hansen’s Enhancement of Traditional Methods:
Hansen’s models “enhance the research and frameworks of firms like Gartner, McKinsey, Deloitte, and The Hackett Group by introducing practitioner-centric, data-driven, and adaptive dimensions that address critical gaps in traditional methodologies”
Bottom Line:
Neither is inherently “better” – they serve different purposes:
The optimal approach combines all three:
This creates a comprehensive evaluation methodology that addresses organizational readiness, technology selection, and competitive positioning—exactly what complex procurement transformations like Novartis require.
30
Share this:
Related