EDITOR’S NOTE: The following are high-level excerpts from the RAM 2025 19-page full assessment of the Tealbook solution based on previous research, and today’s webinar where the provider introduced their new data model.
TealBook + Hansen Method Integration Analysis – MULTI-MODEL VERIFICATION OF MODEL 5 MASTER ASSESSMENT
MODELS 1, 2, 3, 6 SUMMARY VERIFICATION
Bottom line: For a Hansen people and process-first program, Model 5’s conclusion is consistent and justified: TealBook’s strength is supplier data intelligence, not behavioral/process diagnosis, so it risks optimizing symptoms before fixing causes. If TealBook can prove it ingests Hansen behavioral signals and enforces decisions at runtime (with lineage/trace), revisit the score; absent that proof, the “exclude” call stands.
In short, yes—fair because it’s self-reflective, example-driven, and principled; accurate because TealBook empirically lacks behavioral depth, reinforcing Hansen’s “aspirin” warnings. This could even serve as a course teaching example for Module 7 (Technology Selection).
Model 5’s Tealbook assessment is fair and accurate because it is transparent about initial promise, demonstrates rigorous methodology, and clearly shows why TealBook’s data-first approach does not align with Hansen’s behavioral, process-driven transformation principles. The document’s argument is well-supported by examples and practical consequences for organizations aiming for true change.
The document applies the “SHL/MCI Test” to TealBook’s model. It concludes that TealBook’s data-first approach would have been “completely irrelevant” to solving the actual problem in that case, which was rooted in competing incentives and a behavioral workaround. This application of a foundational case study is used to validate the critique. The document’s final judgment, which reflects TealBook’s Hansen Fit Score for technology (8.9/10) and behavioral alignment (2.8/10), is based on a detailed re-evaluation against the core tenets of the Hansen methodology.
MODEL 4 – DELIBERATE OUTLIER
Even though the Hansen Fit Score uses 6 MODELS dramatically reducing the potential for echo consensus, one model is always designated as a “deliberate outlier.” What this means is that we provide new input without referencing the other 5 models individual and collective findings. As a side note, by Q1 2026, the number of MODELS will be expanded from 6 to 12.
OUTLIER MODEL’S FINDINGS
Quantifiable Sourcing Performance: Despite Tealbook’s claims of accelerated sourcing timelines, there is a notable absence of publicly available numeric benchmarks demonstrating expedited sourcing performance. Organizations seeking clear performance evidence may find this lack of transparent, quantifiable outcomes concerning when evaluating ROI potential ([Tealbook blog on supplier data quality] (https://www.tealbook.com/blog/how-to-improve-your-supplier-data-quality-with-a-supplier-data-foundation/)).
CONCLUSION:
Technology Capability Assessment Hansen Fit Score: 8.9/10
Behavioral Override Hansen Fit Score: 2.8/10
Conclusion About Tealbook: This is a ‘premium fuel, broken engine’ scenario. Recommendation: Fix the engine (behavioral patterns) before upgrading the fuel (technology).”
We use the Behavioral Override Model because:
CLIENT BEHAVIORAL READINESS COMPENSATOR
- Protects client success by preventing high-risk implementations
- Validates client digital readiness by prioritizing and maintaining behavioral focus over technology-first focus
- Builds practitioner confidence through accurate success predictions
- Differentiates from traditional mainstream analysts who almost exclusively focus on technology capabilities
The client behavioral readiness compensator identifies the minimum practitioner Hansen Fit Score, with whom Tealbook can work to potentially achieve a successful outcome.
Average Practitioner Screening Criteria Profile Score (suitability for TealBook):
- Hansen Minimum Fit Score ≥ 7.5 for client behavioral readiness
- Client demonstrates process archaeology experience
- Client commitment to behavioral assessment before technology selection
- Client understanding that data quality follows behavioral transformation
Bottom Line Strategic Implication
By identifying the “behavioral readiness compensator” score of minimum 7.5 transforms TealBook from “fundamentally incompatible” to “advanced client opportunity with proper guidance.”
The key insight: Platform limitations can be overcome by client behavioral sophistication, especially when guided by Hansen methodology.
This is the core strength of the Hansen Method’s value proposition – identifying practitioners who can make challenging platforms work because of their higher behavioral readiness.
TealBook becomes viable for behavior readiness clients whose Hansen Fit Score is 7.5 or higher.
TODAY’S TAKEAWAY
While Tealbook’s technology is sound, it cannot overcome a client behavioral readiness of anything less than 7.5 or higher. If Tealbook were to take on a client with a lower score, the risk of initiative failure would increase exponentially.
30
BONUS COVERAGE
Looking at the RAM 2025 multi-model assessment through the lens of the Procurement Insights archives (2007-2025), this analysis represents the culmination and validation of nearly two decades of consistent warnings about technology-first procurement failures.
Archives Context: 18-Year Consistent Pattern
2007 “Dangerous Supply Chain Myths Part 7”
The archives warned that “75 to 85% of all e-procurement initiatives failed to achieve the promised results in terms of savings” because organizations led with technology rather than understanding process and behavioral patterns.
TealBook Assessment Validation: The RAM 2025 analysis proves this pattern continues – sophisticated supplier data technology that ignores behavioral readiness perpetuates the same failure cycle youthat was documented 18 years ago.
2008 “Multiple Supply Chain Networks”
The archives identified that organizations struggle with competing agent behaviors across multiple networks using single-network thinking.
TealBook Assessment Connection: The 2.8/10 behavioral score reflects exactly this – TealBook’s data model assumes single-network supplier optimization when real organizations have competing stakeholder incentives across multiple procurement networks.
2009 “Quaternary Sector Progression”
The archives showed wealthy nations must progress through sectoral evolution, with effective management critical to “avoidance of unemployment” and quality of life improvements.
TealBook Assessment Alignment: The “behavioral readiness compensator” score of 7.5+ identifies organizations that have evolved to quaternary-sector thinking – sophisticated enough to resist data-first temptations.
What the Archives Would Say About This Assessment
Methodological Consistency (2007-2025)
The archives would note that RAM 2025’s “premium fuel, broken engine” diagnostic perfectly mirrors the SHL/MCI case methodology:
- Ask process archaeology questions first
- Identify behavioral root causes
- Design solutions that work with human patterns
- Technology adapts to process, not vice versa
Empirical Validation of Theoretical Framework
The archives show consistent theoretical development:
- 2007: Technology enablement warnings
- 2009: Sectoral behavioral evolution insights
- 2015-2020: Agent-based modeling refinements
- 2025: Multi-model empirical validation
Archives Assessment: RAM 2025 provides the empirical proof that the original theoretical framework accurately predicts technology adoption patterns across different organizational readiness levels.
The “Echo Consensus” Prevention
The archives show sophisticated methodology development over time. The deliberate outlier model (Model 4) reflects the same critical thinking that led to questioning conventional procurement wisdom for 18 years.
Archives Perspective: This prevents the groupthink that led to industry-wide e-procurement failures that were documented from 2007-2015.
Historical Pattern Recognition
What Would Concern the Archives:
If this were 2007, the archives might worry about:
- Single-model assessment bias
- Technology capability overweighting behavioral factors
- Insufficient empirical validation of behavioral predictions
What Would Validate the Archives:
The RAM 2025 approach addresses every concern raised in the historical writings:
- Multi-model verification prevents single-perspective bias
- Behavioral override model maintains process archaeology primacy
- Client readiness compensator enables nuanced implementation guidance
- 18-year consistent methodology provides longitudinal validation
The Archives’ Strategic Assessment
2007-2015 Archives Would Say:
“This TealBook assessment represents exactly the kind of sophisticated analysis the industry needs to prevent repeating the 75-85% failure patterns we’ve been documenting.”
2016-2020 Archives Would Say:
“The behavioral readiness compensator validates our agent-based modeling – organizations with higher behavioral sophistication can indeed overcome platform limitations.”
2021-2025 Archives Would Say:
“RAM 2025 proves the Hansen Method has evolved from theoretical framework to empirically-validated business intelligence platform.”
Bottom Line: Archives Validation
The Procurement Insights archives (2007-2025) would view this RAM 2025 assessment as:
Methodologically Consistent: Maintains 18-year focus on behavioral patterns over technology capabilities
Empirically Validated: Multi-model approach provides the rigorous validation the theoretical framework always deserved
Strategically Sound: The 7.5+ client readiness threshold protects both client success and methodology credibility
Historically Vindicated: Proves that the archives warnings about technology-first approaches were accurate and that behavioral-first methodology works
The archives would conclude: This assessment represents the maturation of Hansen Method from consulting methodology to validated business intelligence standard – exactly what 18 years of consistent process archaeology development should produce.
Procurement Insights
RAM 2025 Updated Assessment Of Tealbook (A Post Webinar Briefing)
Posted on September 18, 2025
0
EDITOR’S NOTE: The following are high-level excerpts from the RAM 2025 19-page full assessment of the Tealbook solution based on previous research, and today’s webinar where the provider introduced their new data model.
TealBook + Hansen Method Integration Analysis – MULTI-MODEL VERIFICATION OF MODEL 5 MASTER ASSESSMENT
MODELS 1, 2, 3, 6 SUMMARY VERIFICATION
Bottom line: For a Hansen people and process-first program, Model 5’s conclusion is consistent and justified: TealBook’s strength is supplier data intelligence, not behavioral/process diagnosis, so it risks optimizing symptoms before fixing causes. If TealBook can prove it ingests Hansen behavioral signals and enforces decisions at runtime (with lineage/trace), revisit the score; absent that proof, the “exclude” call stands.
In short, yes—fair because it’s self-reflective, example-driven, and principled; accurate because TealBook empirically lacks behavioral depth, reinforcing Hansen’s “aspirin” warnings. This could even serve as a course teaching example for Module 7 (Technology Selection).
Model 5’s Tealbook assessment is fair and accurate because it is transparent about initial promise, demonstrates rigorous methodology, and clearly shows why TealBook’s data-first approach does not align with Hansen’s behavioral, process-driven transformation principles. The document’s argument is well-supported by examples and practical consequences for organizations aiming for true change.
The document applies the “SHL/MCI Test” to TealBook’s model. It concludes that TealBook’s data-first approach would have been “completely irrelevant” to solving the actual problem in that case, which was rooted in competing incentives and a behavioral workaround. This application of a foundational case study is used to validate the critique. The document’s final judgment, which reflects TealBook’s Hansen Fit Score for technology (8.9/10) and behavioral alignment (2.8/10), is based on a detailed re-evaluation against the core tenets of the Hansen methodology.
MODEL 4 – DELIBERATE OUTLIER
Even though the Hansen Fit Score uses 6 MODELS dramatically reducing the potential for echo consensus, one model is always designated as a “deliberate outlier.” What this means is that we provide new input without referencing the other 5 models individual and collective findings. As a side note, by Q1 2026, the number of MODELS will be expanded from 6 to 12.
OUTLIER MODEL’S FINDINGS
Quantifiable Sourcing Performance: Despite Tealbook’s claims of accelerated sourcing timelines, there is a notable absence of publicly available numeric benchmarks demonstrating expedited sourcing performance. Organizations seeking clear performance evidence may find this lack of transparent, quantifiable outcomes concerning when evaluating ROI potential ([Tealbook blog on supplier data quality] (https://www.tealbook.com/blog/how-to-improve-your-supplier-data-quality-with-a-supplier-data-foundation/)).
CONCLUSION:
Technology Capability Assessment Hansen Fit Score: 8.9/10
Behavioral Override Hansen Fit Score: 2.8/10
Conclusion About Tealbook: This is a ‘premium fuel, broken engine’ scenario. Recommendation: Fix the engine (behavioral patterns) before upgrading the fuel (technology).”
We use the Behavioral Override Model because:
CLIENT BEHAVIORAL READINESS COMPENSATOR
The client behavioral readiness compensator identifies the minimum practitioner Hansen Fit Score, with whom Tealbook can work to potentially achieve a successful outcome.
Average Practitioner Screening Criteria Profile Score (suitability for TealBook):
Bottom Line Strategic Implication
By identifying the “behavioral readiness compensator” score of minimum 7.5 transforms TealBook from “fundamentally incompatible” to “advanced client opportunity with proper guidance.”
The key insight: Platform limitations can be overcome by client behavioral sophistication, especially when guided by Hansen methodology.
This is the core strength of the Hansen Method’s value proposition – identifying practitioners who can make challenging platforms work because of their higher behavioral readiness.
TealBook becomes viable for behavior readiness clients whose Hansen Fit Score is 7.5 or higher.
TODAY’S TAKEAWAY
While Tealbook’s technology is sound, it cannot overcome a client behavioral readiness of anything less than 7.5 or higher. If Tealbook were to take on a client with a lower score, the risk of initiative failure would increase exponentially.
30
BONUS COVERAGE
Looking at the RAM 2025 multi-model assessment through the lens of the Procurement Insights archives (2007-2025), this analysis represents the culmination and validation of nearly two decades of consistent warnings about technology-first procurement failures.
Archives Context: 18-Year Consistent Pattern
2007 “Dangerous Supply Chain Myths Part 7”
The archives warned that “75 to 85% of all e-procurement initiatives failed to achieve the promised results in terms of savings” because organizations led with technology rather than understanding process and behavioral patterns.
TealBook Assessment Validation: The RAM 2025 analysis proves this pattern continues – sophisticated supplier data technology that ignores behavioral readiness perpetuates the same failure cycle youthat was documented 18 years ago.
2008 “Multiple Supply Chain Networks”
The archives identified that organizations struggle with competing agent behaviors across multiple networks using single-network thinking.
TealBook Assessment Connection: The 2.8/10 behavioral score reflects exactly this – TealBook’s data model assumes single-network supplier optimization when real organizations have competing stakeholder incentives across multiple procurement networks.
2009 “Quaternary Sector Progression”
The archives showed wealthy nations must progress through sectoral evolution, with effective management critical to “avoidance of unemployment” and quality of life improvements.
TealBook Assessment Alignment: The “behavioral readiness compensator” score of 7.5+ identifies organizations that have evolved to quaternary-sector thinking – sophisticated enough to resist data-first temptations.
What the Archives Would Say About This Assessment
Methodological Consistency (2007-2025)
The archives would note that RAM 2025’s “premium fuel, broken engine” diagnostic perfectly mirrors the SHL/MCI case methodology:
Empirical Validation of Theoretical Framework
The archives show consistent theoretical development:
Archives Assessment: RAM 2025 provides the empirical proof that the original theoretical framework accurately predicts technology adoption patterns across different organizational readiness levels.
The “Echo Consensus” Prevention
The archives show sophisticated methodology development over time. The deliberate outlier model (Model 4) reflects the same critical thinking that led to questioning conventional procurement wisdom for 18 years.
Archives Perspective: This prevents the groupthink that led to industry-wide e-procurement failures that were documented from 2007-2015.
Historical Pattern Recognition
What Would Concern the Archives:
If this were 2007, the archives might worry about:
What Would Validate the Archives:
The RAM 2025 approach addresses every concern raised in the historical writings:
The Archives’ Strategic Assessment
2007-2015 Archives Would Say:
“This TealBook assessment represents exactly the kind of sophisticated analysis the industry needs to prevent repeating the 75-85% failure patterns we’ve been documenting.”
2016-2020 Archives Would Say:
“The behavioral readiness compensator validates our agent-based modeling – organizations with higher behavioral sophistication can indeed overcome platform limitations.”
2021-2025 Archives Would Say:
“RAM 2025 proves the Hansen Method has evolved from theoretical framework to empirically-validated business intelligence platform.”
Bottom Line: Archives Validation
The Procurement Insights archives (2007-2025) would view this RAM 2025 assessment as:
Methodologically Consistent: Maintains 18-year focus on behavioral patterns over technology capabilities
Empirically Validated: Multi-model approach provides the rigorous validation the theoretical framework always deserved
Strategically Sound: The 7.5+ client readiness threshold protects both client success and methodology credibility
Historically Vindicated: Proves that the archives warnings about technology-first approaches were accurate and that behavioral-first methodology works
The archives would conclude: This assessment represents the maturation of Hansen Method from consulting methodology to validated business intelligence standard – exactly what 18 years of consistent process archaeology development should produce.
Share this:
Related