Analysis: Max Henry’s AI Agent Deployment Intent vs. Hansen Fit Score and MASCM Models

EDITOR’S NOTE: Max Henry recently posted an article on LinkedIn, “How Supply Chain Executives Can Easily Deploy AI Agents,” that is worth a read.

In the meantime, here is my take:

Max Henry’s Intent (Summary)

Max Henry’s intent is to provide supply chain executives with an actionable, low-risk pathway for AI agent adoption that emphasizes tactical implementation over strategic paralysis. His core message advocates for a “start small, scale fast” methodology that leverages existing infrastructure while building organizational confidence through measurable wins.

Alignment with Hansen Fit Score and MASCM Models

Overall Alignment Score: ~75-80% – Strong philosophical alignment with moderate methodological divergence.

1. Metaprise Model Alignment: ~70%

Strong Alignments:

• Henry’s emphasis on “API-first platforms” directly supports Hansen’s Metaprise focus on “human-AI collaboration across procurement to break down silos and foster ecosystem-wide integration.”
• Both advocate for incremental transformation over massive overhauls
• Henry’s “start small, target specific workflows” mirrors Hansen’s “ecosystem-oriented approach” with “connectedness, interdependence, and self-optimizing systems”

Key Gaps:

• Henry lacks Hansen’s emphasis on “continuous algorithmic adaptation” and “real-time learning.”
• Limited focus on cross-enterprise orchestration that Hansen’s Metaprise emphasizes

2. Agent-Based Model Alignment: ~85%

Exceptional Alignment:

• Henry’s AI agents concept directly parallels Hansen’s “autonomous agents following simple rules” with “emergent behavior and decentralized control.”
• Both emphasize that “technology moves from a functional driver to a problem-solving tool” when you “lead with people and process understanding”
• Henry’s focus on “freeing procurement and supply chain teams to focus on strategy and relationships” aligns with Hansen’s agent empowerment philosophy.

Perfect Convergence:

• Henry’s approach of starting with “routine processes like supplier contract reviews, onboarding, or demand forecasting” matches Hansen’s incremental agent deployment methodology

3. Strand Commonality Alignment: ~65%

Moderate Alignment:

• Henry’s emphasis on integration with “existing procurement or logistics systems” reflects Hansen’s strand commonality focus on “identifying hidden connections across disparate data streams”
• Both recognize the importance of avoiding disruption to existing workflows

Significant Gaps:

• Henry doesn’t address Hansen’s critical focus on “semantic patterns and black swan event mitigation”
• Limited emphasis on detecting “strand drift” or cross-functional dependencies

4. Hansen Fit Score Methodology Alignment: ~60%

Moderate Alignment:

• Henry’s focus on “measurable outcomes” aligns with Hansen’s “quantified fit” approach that “converts each element into readiness multipliers and leading indicators.”
• Both emphasize organizational readiness assessment.

Critical Gaps:

• Henry lacks Hansen’s “AI-driven algorithm framework that assesses technology providers based on organizational alignment, leadership profiles, and strategic risk management.”
• No systematic scoring methodology for technology-organizational fit optimization

Critical Analysis: Where Henry Falls Short of Hansen’s Vision

1. Lack of Predictive Capability

Hansen’s methodology provides “predictive capabilities” and “quantifies the suitability of ProcureTech solutions for specific enterprise needs”, while Henry’s approach is more reactive and implementation-focused.

2. Missing Systemic Assessment

Henry doesn’t address Hansen’s emphasis on “dynamics & propagation: how a change in one node ripples through agents over time” or “strand commonality: patterns that create friction or flow.”

3. Technology-First Bias

Despite advocating for organizational readiness, Henry’s approach still leans toward technology deployment rather than Hansen’s “practitioner-centric design” that starts with “What do we actually want to improve?”

How Hansen’s Models Would Enhance Henry’s Approach

Sequential Integration Opportunity:

1. Pre-Implementation (Hansen Fit Score): Assess “organizational alignment, leadership profiles, and strategic risk management” before selecting AI agent technologies
2. Implementation (Henry’s Method): Deploy using his “start small, scale fast” methodology
3. Optimization (MASCM Models): Apply “continuous recalibration and fit assessment” to prevent “strand drift”

Enhanced Execution Framework:

• Metaprise Enhancement: Add “human-AI collaboration orchestration” to Henry’s integration strategy
• Agent-Based Enhancement: Incorporate “self-learning algorithms” and “multivariable complexity handling”
• Strand Commonality Enhancement: Add systematic monitoring for “hidden connections and recurring patterns across disparate data strands”

Bottom Line

Max Henry provides practical, executable guidance for AI agent deployment that would benefit significantly from Hansen’s sophisticated assessment and optimization frameworks. While Henry offers tactical implementation wisdom, Hansen’s models provide the “transparency and methodological rigor” needed for sustainable, transformational success.

The optimal approach would combine Henry’s practical deployment methodology with Hansen’s predictive assessment capabilities, creating a framework that is both immediately actionable and strategically sophisticated.

30

BONUS GRAPH – HENRY, GARTNER, KPMG, AND MCKINSEY