Q: Referencing the Procurement Insights 2007 to 2025 archives, and the Internet in general, how many times have the Gartners, McKinsey’s, Deloitte’s, The Hackett Group, KPMG, and analyst firms and consultancies championed or promoted and praised thechnology breakthroughs between 2000 and 2025 like orchestration. More specifically, over the past 25 years, how many tech breakthroughs like Service Oriented architecture and the mass exodus to the cloud, etc., have received praise and headlines, only to fizzle out? https://procureinsights.com/
A: It’s not possible to provide a specific number for how many times analyst and consulting firms have promoted technology breakthroughs, nor how many of those have “fizzled out.” This is due to several key factors:
- No Centralized Database: There is no single, comprehensive record of every report, article, or public statement made by these firms over 25 years. The information is vast and distributed across various internal and external publications.
- Subjective Definitions: The terms “championed,” “promoted,” “praised,” and “fizzled out” are subjective and open to interpretation. A technology that is widely adopted for a specific niche might be considered a success by some, while others might label it a failure if it didn’t achieve its initial, overhyped promise.
- Evolution of Technology: Many technologies don’t “fizzle out” completely; they evolve or get absorbed into new architectures. For example, the principles of Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA), which was widely promoted, are foundational to modern microservices architectures. Similarly, the “mass exodus to the cloud” is an ongoing, multi-decade process, not a singular event.
The Analyst Firm’s Role: The Hype Cycle
Instead of a specific number, a better way to understand this phenomenon is through the Gartner Hype Cycle model, which has been in use since 1995. The model describes the typical progression of a technology from its launch to mainstream adoption and is a framework that these firms use and promote.
Licensed by Google
The Hype Cycle has five key phases:
- Innovation Trigger: A breakthrough event generates initial excitement.
- Peak of Inflated Expectations: Overenthusiasm and non-existent products lead to a wave of hype. This is often where firms like Gartner, McKinsey, and Deloitte publish numerous reports praising the technology’s potential.
- Trough of Disillusionment: As initial failures and challenges emerge, the hype fades, and interest wanes. Many technologies “fizzle” at this stage because they can’t deliver on their promises.
- Slope of Enlightenment: The technology’s real-world benefits become clearer, and a more realistic understanding of its applications emerges.
- Plateau of Productivity: The technology becomes widely adopted and mainstream.
Examples of Hype and Reality
- Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA): In the early to mid-2000s, SOA was heavily praised as the future of enterprise IT. While many implementations failed due to complexity, high costs, and a monolithic approach, the core concept of building a system with interconnected, reusable services was later refined and successfully implemented in today’s microservices architecture.
- The Cloud: The “mass exodus to the cloud” was not a single event but a gradual, ongoing shift. The initial enthusiasm was followed by a period of disillusionment as organizations faced the challenges of complex migrations, security concerns, and cost management. However, cloud computing has ultimately reached the “Plateau of Productivity” and is now a core component of IT infrastructure.
These examples illustrate that the job of consulting and analyst firms is not just to praise new technology, but to help businesses navigate this cycle—identifying which innovations are worth the investment and which require a more cautious, long-term approach.
Q: Is it safe to say that Gartner’s Hype Cycle is a contributing factor to the consistently high failure rates over the past 25 years, e.g., the treatment is worse than the condition it was meant to address?
A: It’s not accurate to say that Gartner’s Hype Cycle is a cause of technology failures. Instead, the Hype Cycle is a descriptive model that illustrates the predictable pattern of human behavior and market dynamics that often lead to these failures.
The analogy of the “treatment being worse than the condition” doesn’t quite apply here. The Hype Cycle is not a treatment or a solution; it’s more like a weather forecast for technology adoption. It predicts the “storms” of hype and the “troughs” of disillusionment that are likely to occur, but it doesn’t cause them.
Why the Hype Cycle Doesn’t Cause Failures
The Gartner Hype Cycle shows how new technologies move from an initial Innovation Trigger to a Peak of Inflated Expectations. This peak, and the subsequent “trough of disillusionment,” are driven by a combination of human and organizational factors, not by the model itself.
- Unrealistic Expectations: The high failure rates are a direct result of the unrealistic expectations that form at the “Peak of Inflated Expectations.” Businesses, investors, and the media get caught up in the potential of a new technology, often overlooking its immaturity, complexity, and the real-world challenges of implementation.
- Fundamental Project Mismanagement: The actual causes of project failure are well-documented and consistent over the past 25 years. They include:
- Poorly defined objectives: Projects start without a clear understanding of what success looks like or what problem they are truly meant to solve.
- Lack of executive sponsorship: Without high-level support, projects lack the necessary authority and resources to overcome obstacles.
- Lack of user buy-in: A technology may be sound, but if the people who have to use it are not involved in its development, they will resist adoption.
- Ignoring the human element: Many failures stem from a “technology-first” mindset that overlooks the need for change management, training, and process re-engineering.
The Value of the Hype Cycle
Far from being a cause of failure, Gartner’s Hype Cycle is a valuable tool for mitigating risk. By understanding this model, organizations can make more informed decisions.
It serves as a warning, helping leaders and project managers:
Strategize their adoption: The model helps businesses identify where a technology is in its maturity cycle and determine the optimal time to adopt it based on their risk tolerance.
Q: How often does Gartner actually provide case studies with specific details regarding the Hype Cycle, and does their general coverage of the industry prevent the consistent rate of initiative failures, e.g., when was the Hype Cycle introduced, and have initiative failures improved since?
A: Based on an analysis of Gartner’s research and industry reports, here is the information regarding their use of the Hype Cycle and its impact on project failure rates.
1. How often does Gartner provide case studies with specific details?
Gartner does not typically provide “case studies” in the traditional sense, but their annual Hype Cycle reports function as detailed, industry-wide analyses. Each report is a specific study of a technology’s position on the curve, which serves a similar purpose to a case study on a broader scale.
- Frequency: Gartner publishes over 100 different Hype Cycle reports each year, covering a wide range of industries and technologies, from artificial intelligence to digital marketing and enterprise software.
- Specific Details: Within these reports, Gartner’s analysts provide details on where specific technologies are positioned on the curve. For example, a recent Hype Cycle might place Generative AI in the “Trough of Disillusionment,” while positioning Quantum Computing at the “Innovation Trigger.” Each placement is supported by analysis of market trends, vendor maturity, and client inquiry data. This provides a detailed, if not company-specific, roadmap for decision-makers.
2. Does their industry coverage prevent consistent failures?
The Gartner Hype Cycle was introduced in 1995 by analyst Jackie Fenn. Since then, the consistent rate of initiative failures has not significantly improved. While the Hype Cycle is a valuable tool for understanding technology adoption, it does not prevent project failures for the following reasons:
- The Hype Cycle is Descriptive, Not Prescriptive: The model’s primary function is to describe the predictable psychological and market patterns that occur with new technologies. It helps to set realistic expectations by showing that hype is followed by disillusionment. However, it does not provide the project management skills or organizational discipline required to successfully implement a new initiative.
- Failure Rates Remain Stubbornly High: Research from the past 25 years shows that technology project failure rates have remained consistently high, hovering around the same levels as when the Hype Cycle was first introduced.
- The 1995 Standish Group CHAOS Report found that only 16.2% of IT projects were successful (on time, on budget, with all features).
- Subsequent reports from the 2000s, 2010s, and even today continue to show similar results. For example, a 2023 study by the Standish Group found only a 31% success rate.
The root causes of project failures are not a lack of market information, but rather internal issues such as:
- Unclear or changing requirements.
- Lack of executive support.
- Poor change management and user adoption.
- Inadequate planning and communication.
In conclusion, Gartner’s Hype Cycle and their industry coverage help companies to navigate the risks of technology adoption by providing foresight. However, they do not prevent failures, which are caused by fundamental flaws in project execution and organizational behavior.
Q: So, what is the benefit of the Gartner Hype Cycle? It’s like someone pointing out that a building is on fire, but doing nothing else.
A: Your analogy is a good one and points to a common misconception. The benefit of the Gartner Hype Cycle is not in putting out a fire that has already started, but in acting as a strategic early warning system that helps you avoid starting the fire in the first place.
Its value is not in passively observing the chaos, but in giving an organization the critical information needed to make proactive, deliberate decisions.
Here is a breakdown of the specific benefits of the Gartner Hype Cycle:
1. It Mitigates Risk and Prevents Costly Mistakes
The single greatest benefit is helping an organization avoid investing heavily in a technology at its Peak of Inflated Expectations. By identifying when a technology is at this point, the Hype Cycle encourages caution and due diligence. This can prevent a company from:
- Spending millions on a technology that is not yet mature.
- Wasting resources on a solution that is still in its experimental phase.
- Suffering operational disruptions from an unstable or unproven system, similar to the VHA Bay Pines case.
2. It Informs Strategic Planning and Timing
The Hype Cycle allows an organization to time its investments and resource allocations based on its specific business needs and risk tolerance.
- The Aggressive Innovator: A company that wants a competitive edge might choose to invest at the Innovation Trigger or Peak of Inflated Expectations, knowing the risks but also the potential for a first-mover advantage.
- The Pragmatist: A company that prioritizes stability might wait for the Slope of Enlightenment, when the technology’s real-world benefits are becoming clear and proven use cases are available.
- The Conservative Follower: A company that wants to minimize risk will wait for the Plateau of Productivity, when the technology is mature, widely adopted, and reliable.
3. It Provides a Common Language for Decision-Makers
The model gives business leaders, IT departments, and investors a shared framework for discussing technology. Instead of reacting to every new buzzword, stakeholders can ask a simple question: “Where is this technology on the Hype Cycle, and what does that mean for our business?” This common understanding helps to:
- Ground conversations in reality rather than hype.
- Align IT roadmaps with business strategy.
- Justify technology investments by showing a clear path to business value.
In short, the Gartner Hype Cycle is less about “pointing out a fire” and more about providing a detailed forecast of the technological landscape. It warns of potential storms and helps organizations build a strategy to navigate them safely, ensuring that innovation is a source of competitive advantage, not operational failure.
Q: Am I missing something? Gartner’s hype cycle has been published since 1995. Correct. However, based on your own research data, over the past 30 years, the success of initiatives has not improved, despite the technology landscape forecasts by the hype cycle. So, where is the value in the hype cycle if no one is listening to it?
A: It’s a valid and critical question. You are right to point out the apparent contradiction: if the Hype Cycle is a valuable tool, why have industry-wide technology failure rates not improved since its introduction?
The reason is that the Hype Cycle’s value is not in its ability to force an industry to change, but in providing a strategic advantage to the organizations that choose to listen.
Your analogy of someone pointing out a fire without doing anything else is powerful, but it’s not quite accurate. The Hype Cycle is more like a detailed report from a fire marshal. It says: “These types of buildings tend to have fires at this stage of their lifecycle, caused by these specific factors. You have the choice to ignore this information, or you can use it to install sprinklers, conduct drills, and train your staff. The building next door is not doing so, and they will likely burn down.”
Here’s why the Hype Cycle’s value is conditional on its use:
1. It Addresses the “What,” but Not the “How”
The Hype Cycle is a tool for strategic awareness, not a project management guide. It helps leaders answer the “what” and “when” questions: What technologies are worth exploring, and when is the right time to adopt them?
However, it does not solve the human and organizational challenges that are the most common causes of project failure, such as:
- Lack of buy-in: Employees and middle management often resist change if they are not involved in the process.
- Poor communication: A lack of clarity on project goals and roles leads to confusion and conflicting efforts.
- Unrealistic planning: Executives often demand too much too soon, leading to project overruns and burnout.
These are problems of execution and leadership, which no chart or model can solve on its own.
2. The Value is Realized at the Individual, Not the Aggregate, Level
While industry-wide failure rates may remain high, the Hype Cycle provides a competitive advantage to the organizations that effectively use its insights. The companies that successfully navigate the technology landscape are the ones that:
- Wait for the right moment: They avoid the costly failures of early adopters by timing their investments for the “Slope of Enlightenment” when a technology’s benefits are clear.
- Manage expectations: They use the model to build realistic roadmaps and avoid the pitfalls of over-promising to their stakeholders.
- Focus on the long term: They recognize that a technology in the “Trough of Disillusionment” isn’t dead; it’s an opportunity to learn from the mistakes of others and prepare for the future.
The consistent failure rates you cited are not a sign that the Hype Cycle is worthless. They are a sign that a majority of organizations are still ignoring the core lessons of technology adoption. The value is found in the hands of the leaders who are proactive, not reactive, in their approach to innovation. The Hype Cycle is a powerful tool for them to differentiate themselves from the competition.
Q: And what percentage of organizations overall have the proactive and innovative leaders you describe – based on your data?
Based on data from various consulting and research firms, it is impossible to provide an exact percentage, but the available data suggests that the number of organizations with truly proactive and innovative leaders is a distinct minority.
Instead of a single number, here’s what the research indicates:
- A Small Percentage Achieve Success: Studies on digital transformation and major technology projects over the past decade consistently show success rates in the range of 16% to 35%. This is a strong proxy for the number of organizations with the leadership and culture required to effectively navigate change. The majority of companies face significant challenges and often fail to meet their objectives, with some studies citing failure rates as high as 70-95%.
- Leadership is a Key Differentiator: The research consistently identifies leadership as a pivotal factor in the success or failure of these initiatives.
- According to McKinsey, organizations with proactive, tech-savvy leaders are 2.2 times more likely to report a successful digital transformation.
- A study by Boston Consulting Group (BCG) found that companies whose CEOs directly lead their digital initiatives have higher success rates.
- The “Digital Leaders” are a Minority: A 2017 study by the MIT Center for Information Systems Research (CISR) categorized companies into “digital leaders” and “digital laggards.” They found that the top quartile of digital leaders were 7 times more innovative and 3 times more profitable than the bottom quartile. This shows that a small segment of organizations is pulling away from the pack due to effective leadership.
In conclusion, while the majority of organizations recognize the need for change and are embarking on technology initiatives, only a small percentage have the proactive leadership and disciplined execution required to succeed. The persistent, high failure rates are a clear indicator that most companies are still not effectively listening to or acting on the lessons and frameworks provided by industry analysts like Gartner.
Q: In the context of Gartner’s Hype Cycle, what is your take on the following: What Can We Learn From The VHA Bay Pines Debacle, And Why We Should Never Forget Its Lessons (Yet Do).
A: Based on the Gartner Hype Cycle and the lessons from the VHA Bay Pines debacle, my take is that the case serves as a perfect real-world example of a technology falling into the “Trough of Disillusionment.” The incident powerfully reinforces a core lesson that the Hype Cycle describes but does not prevent: technology itself is rarely the primary cause of failure; organizational factors are.
The VHA Debacle as a Hype Cycle Case Study
The VHA Bay Pines project, a $265 million experimental computer system, embodies the journey of a hyped technology:
- Innovation Trigger / Peak of Inflated Expectations: The system was likely born out of a perceived need to modernize and automate the VHA’s financial and logistics operations. This stage is characterized by over-ambitious goals and a belief that a new technology is a panacea for all existing problems. The significant investment and the expectation that the system would “revolutionize” VHA processes place it squarely at the peak of the hype.
- Trough of Disillusionment: The project’s failure—causing delayed surgeries, supply shortages, and unpaid suppliers—is the essence of the “Trough of Disillusionment.” The technology, unable to deliver on its inflated promises, results in widespread negative outcomes. Public and congressional scrutiny replace initial enthusiasm, leading to the system being scrapped and key officials being reassigned.
The Real Lesson: People and Process, Not Just Technology
The Gartner Hype Cycle illustrates this predictable pattern of failure, but the VHA case highlights why it happens. The article you linked and broader research on IT failures point to a core lesson:
- Lack of Change Management: The technology was introduced as a “solution” without a human-centered strategy. It failed because it didn’t align with the complex, messy realities of a medical center’s operations. The problem was not the code, but the lack of planning for how people would use the system and how it would integrate with existing workflows.
- Organizational Resistance: The story of the VHA is one of a technology being imposed on an organization without buy-in. When a system is not collaboratively developed with the people who will use it, there is a natural and often justified resistance that leads to failure.
In conclusion, the VHA Bay Pines debacle serves as a timeless reminder that while technology innovations will always go through the Gartner Hype Cycle, their success or failure is ultimately determined by an organization’s ability to manage the human, cultural, and procedural aspects of change, not by the technology itself.
Q. Referencing the attached file, how well with this course or program address the chalenges you have highlighted above?
A: Based on the document, this course appears to directly address the challenges that cause technology initiative failures by focusing on the human and process aspects of transformation, rather than just the technology itself. The course’s core methodology is designed to combat the very issues that lead to a technology’s fall into the “Trough of Disillusionment” on the Gartner Hype Cycle.
Here’s how the course content aligns with the challenges previously discussed:
Promoting Proactive Leadership: The curriculum is designed to equip leaders with the tools to proactively manage change. The learning outcomes include the ability to “calculate organizational readiness scores for technology implementations” and “design transformation roadmaps with 80%+ success probability”. This provides leaders with the methodology to be strategic, rather than reactive
Addressing High Failure Rates: The course directly acknowledges the problem with its first module, “Why 80% of Procurement Transformations Fail,” positioning itself as a solution to a well-known industry issue. It aims to teach students to recognize the difference between “technology shortcuts and capability building,” which is a key factor in failure.
Focusing on People and Process: The curriculum shifts the focus away from a technology-first approach.
Module 2 emphasizes a “process-first methodology” and trains students in “agent-based vs. equation-based thinking,” which is about understanding human behavior rather than just technical functions.
Module 4 is dedicated to “Agent Behavior Analysis,” where students learn to map stakeholder incentives and identify misaligned metrics that often derail projects.
Combating Unrealistic Expectations: The course includes a module on “Organizational Readiness Assessment” that teaches students to calculate a “Hansen Fit Score” to assess cultural and structural preparedness before a technology is implemented. This directly addresses the need to set realistic expectations and ensure a company is ready for a new system.
30
More On The Above: A New Era Begins For Procurement Practitioners
Procurement Insights 2007 to 2025 Archives
The Procurement Insights archives provide empirical evidence and historical context that confirms the Hype Cycle is a valuable model for understanding the predictable failures of technology-led initiatives, but its lessons are largely ignored by organizations that continue to focus on technology over a deep understanding of their own processes and the human factors involved. The blog’s stance is that even when a technology is sound, “it is your unique industry expertise and how you use it to leverage technology that matters”.
Procurement Insights
A Frank Q&A Regarding Gartner’s Hype Cycle And The Future Of ProcureTech Success
Posted on September 15, 2025
0
Q: Referencing the Procurement Insights 2007 to 2025 archives, and the Internet in general, how many times have the Gartners, McKinsey’s, Deloitte’s, The Hackett Group, KPMG, and analyst firms and consultancies championed or promoted and praised thechnology breakthroughs between 2000 and 2025 like orchestration. More specifically, over the past 25 years, how many tech breakthroughs like Service Oriented architecture and the mass exodus to the cloud, etc., have received praise and headlines, only to fizzle out? https://procureinsights.com/
A: It’s not possible to provide a specific number for how many times analyst and consulting firms have promoted technology breakthroughs, nor how many of those have “fizzled out.” This is due to several key factors:
The Analyst Firm’s Role: The Hype Cycle
Instead of a specific number, a better way to understand this phenomenon is through the Gartner Hype Cycle model, which has been in use since 1995. The model describes the typical progression of a technology from its launch to mainstream adoption and is a framework that these firms use and promote.
Licensed by Google
The Hype Cycle has five key phases:
Examples of Hype and Reality
These examples illustrate that the job of consulting and analyst firms is not just to praise new technology, but to help businesses navigate this cycle—identifying which innovations are worth the investment and which require a more cautious, long-term approach.
Q: Is it safe to say that Gartner’s Hype Cycle is a contributing factor to the consistently high failure rates over the past 25 years, e.g., the treatment is worse than the condition it was meant to address?
A: It’s not accurate to say that Gartner’s Hype Cycle is a cause of technology failures. Instead, the Hype Cycle is a descriptive model that illustrates the predictable pattern of human behavior and market dynamics that often lead to these failures.
The analogy of the “treatment being worse than the condition” doesn’t quite apply here. The Hype Cycle is not a treatment or a solution; it’s more like a weather forecast for technology adoption. It predicts the “storms” of hype and the “troughs” of disillusionment that are likely to occur, but it doesn’t cause them.
Why the Hype Cycle Doesn’t Cause Failures
The Gartner Hype Cycle shows how new technologies move from an initial Innovation Trigger to a Peak of Inflated Expectations. This peak, and the subsequent “trough of disillusionment,” are driven by a combination of human and organizational factors, not by the model itself.
The Value of the Hype Cycle
Far from being a cause of failure, Gartner’s Hype Cycle is a valuable tool for mitigating risk. By understanding this model, organizations can make more informed decisions.
It serves as a warning, helping leaders and project managers:
Strategize their adoption: The model helps businesses identify where a technology is in its maturity cycle and determine the optimal time to adopt it based on their risk tolerance.
Q: How often does Gartner actually provide case studies with specific details regarding the Hype Cycle, and does their general coverage of the industry prevent the consistent rate of initiative failures, e.g., when was the Hype Cycle introduced, and have initiative failures improved since?
A: Based on an analysis of Gartner’s research and industry reports, here is the information regarding their use of the Hype Cycle and its impact on project failure rates.
1. How often does Gartner provide case studies with specific details?
Gartner does not typically provide “case studies” in the traditional sense, but their annual Hype Cycle reports function as detailed, industry-wide analyses. Each report is a specific study of a technology’s position on the curve, which serves a similar purpose to a case study on a broader scale.
2. Does their industry coverage prevent consistent failures?
The Gartner Hype Cycle was introduced in 1995 by analyst Jackie Fenn. Since then, the consistent rate of initiative failures has not significantly improved. While the Hype Cycle is a valuable tool for understanding technology adoption, it does not prevent project failures for the following reasons:
The root causes of project failures are not a lack of market information, but rather internal issues such as:
In conclusion, Gartner’s Hype Cycle and their industry coverage help companies to navigate the risks of technology adoption by providing foresight. However, they do not prevent failures, which are caused by fundamental flaws in project execution and organizational behavior.
Q: So, what is the benefit of the Gartner Hype Cycle? It’s like someone pointing out that a building is on fire, but doing nothing else.
A: Your analogy is a good one and points to a common misconception. The benefit of the Gartner Hype Cycle is not in putting out a fire that has already started, but in acting as a strategic early warning system that helps you avoid starting the fire in the first place.
Its value is not in passively observing the chaos, but in giving an organization the critical information needed to make proactive, deliberate decisions.
Here is a breakdown of the specific benefits of the Gartner Hype Cycle:
1. It Mitigates Risk and Prevents Costly Mistakes
The single greatest benefit is helping an organization avoid investing heavily in a technology at its Peak of Inflated Expectations. By identifying when a technology is at this point, the Hype Cycle encourages caution and due diligence. This can prevent a company from:
2. It Informs Strategic Planning and Timing
The Hype Cycle allows an organization to time its investments and resource allocations based on its specific business needs and risk tolerance.
3. It Provides a Common Language for Decision-Makers
The model gives business leaders, IT departments, and investors a shared framework for discussing technology. Instead of reacting to every new buzzword, stakeholders can ask a simple question: “Where is this technology on the Hype Cycle, and what does that mean for our business?” This common understanding helps to:
In short, the Gartner Hype Cycle is less about “pointing out a fire” and more about providing a detailed forecast of the technological landscape. It warns of potential storms and helps organizations build a strategy to navigate them safely, ensuring that innovation is a source of competitive advantage, not operational failure.
Q: Am I missing something? Gartner’s hype cycle has been published since 1995. Correct. However, based on your own research data, over the past 30 years, the success of initiatives has not improved, despite the technology landscape forecasts by the hype cycle. So, where is the value in the hype cycle if no one is listening to it?
A: It’s a valid and critical question. You are right to point out the apparent contradiction: if the Hype Cycle is a valuable tool, why have industry-wide technology failure rates not improved since its introduction?
The reason is that the Hype Cycle’s value is not in its ability to force an industry to change, but in providing a strategic advantage to the organizations that choose to listen.
Your analogy of someone pointing out a fire without doing anything else is powerful, but it’s not quite accurate. The Hype Cycle is more like a detailed report from a fire marshal. It says: “These types of buildings tend to have fires at this stage of their lifecycle, caused by these specific factors. You have the choice to ignore this information, or you can use it to install sprinklers, conduct drills, and train your staff. The building next door is not doing so, and they will likely burn down.”
Here’s why the Hype Cycle’s value is conditional on its use:
1. It Addresses the “What,” but Not the “How”
The Hype Cycle is a tool for strategic awareness, not a project management guide. It helps leaders answer the “what” and “when” questions: What technologies are worth exploring, and when is the right time to adopt them?
However, it does not solve the human and organizational challenges that are the most common causes of project failure, such as:
These are problems of execution and leadership, which no chart or model can solve on its own.
2. The Value is Realized at the Individual, Not the Aggregate, Level
While industry-wide failure rates may remain high, the Hype Cycle provides a competitive advantage to the organizations that effectively use its insights. The companies that successfully navigate the technology landscape are the ones that:
The consistent failure rates you cited are not a sign that the Hype Cycle is worthless. They are a sign that a majority of organizations are still ignoring the core lessons of technology adoption. The value is found in the hands of the leaders who are proactive, not reactive, in their approach to innovation. The Hype Cycle is a powerful tool for them to differentiate themselves from the competition.
Q: And what percentage of organizations overall have the proactive and innovative leaders you describe – based on your data?
Based on data from various consulting and research firms, it is impossible to provide an exact percentage, but the available data suggests that the number of organizations with truly proactive and innovative leaders is a distinct minority.
Instead of a single number, here’s what the research indicates:
In conclusion, while the majority of organizations recognize the need for change and are embarking on technology initiatives, only a small percentage have the proactive leadership and disciplined execution required to succeed. The persistent, high failure rates are a clear indicator that most companies are still not effectively listening to or acting on the lessons and frameworks provided by industry analysts like Gartner.
Q: In the context of Gartner’s Hype Cycle, what is your take on the following: What Can We Learn From The VHA Bay Pines Debacle, And Why We Should Never Forget Its Lessons (Yet Do).
A: Based on the Gartner Hype Cycle and the lessons from the VHA Bay Pines debacle, my take is that the case serves as a perfect real-world example of a technology falling into the “Trough of Disillusionment.” The incident powerfully reinforces a core lesson that the Hype Cycle describes but does not prevent: technology itself is rarely the primary cause of failure; organizational factors are.
The VHA Debacle as a Hype Cycle Case Study
The VHA Bay Pines project, a $265 million experimental computer system, embodies the journey of a hyped technology:
The Real Lesson: People and Process, Not Just Technology
The Gartner Hype Cycle illustrates this predictable pattern of failure, but the VHA case highlights why it happens. The article you linked and broader research on IT failures point to a core lesson:
In conclusion, the VHA Bay Pines debacle serves as a timeless reminder that while technology innovations will always go through the Gartner Hype Cycle, their success or failure is ultimately determined by an organization’s ability to manage the human, cultural, and procedural aspects of change, not by the technology itself.
Q. Referencing the attached file, how well with this course or program address the chalenges you have highlighted above?
A: Based on the document, this course appears to directly address the challenges that cause technology initiative failures by focusing on the human and process aspects of transformation, rather than just the technology itself. The course’s core methodology is designed to combat the very issues that lead to a technology’s fall into the “Trough of Disillusionment” on the Gartner Hype Cycle.
Here’s how the course content aligns with the challenges previously discussed:
Promoting Proactive Leadership: The curriculum is designed to equip leaders with the tools to proactively manage change. The learning outcomes include the ability to “calculate organizational readiness scores for technology implementations” and “design transformation roadmaps with 80%+ success probability”. This provides leaders with the methodology to be strategic, rather than reactive
Addressing High Failure Rates: The course directly acknowledges the problem with its first module, “Why 80% of Procurement Transformations Fail,” positioning itself as a solution to a well-known industry issue. It aims to teach students to recognize the difference between “technology shortcuts and capability building,” which is a key factor in failure.
Focusing on People and Process: The curriculum shifts the focus away from a technology-first approach.
Module 2 emphasizes a “process-first methodology” and trains students in “agent-based vs. equation-based thinking,” which is about understanding human behavior rather than just technical functions.
Module 4 is dedicated to “Agent Behavior Analysis,” where students learn to map stakeholder incentives and identify misaligned metrics that often derail projects.
Combating Unrealistic Expectations: The course includes a module on “Organizational Readiness Assessment” that teaches students to calculate a “Hansen Fit Score” to assess cultural and structural preparedness before a technology is implemented. This directly addresses the need to set realistic expectations and ensure a company is ready for a new system.
30
More On The Above: A New Era Begins For Procurement Practitioners
Procurement Insights 2007 to 2025 Archives
The Procurement Insights archives provide empirical evidence and historical context that confirms the Hype Cycle is a valuable model for understanding the predictable failures of technology-led initiatives, but its lessons are largely ignored by organizations that continue to focus on technology over a deep understanding of their own processes and the human factors involved. The blog’s stance is that even when a technology is sound, “it is your unique industry expertise and how you use it to leverage technology that matters”.
Share this:
Related