Looking at the Gartner LinkedIn post alongside the referenced Procurement Insights articles, several critical observations emerge about the fundamental differences in approach and market positioning:
Gartner’s Generic AI Framework vs. Hansen’s Procurement-Specific Methodology
The Gartner post exemplifies exactly what the Hansen Method™ critiques about traditional consulting approaches. The images show:
Generic, One-Size-Fits-All Solutions: Gartner’s “AI Agent Assessment Framework” treats procurement like any other business function, missing the unique stakeholder dynamics, process complexities, and organizational readiness factors that determine procurement transformation success.
Technology-First Approach: The focus on “GenAI initiatives that actually deliver value” still leads with technology capabilities rather than organizational readiness assessment, directly contradicting Hansen’s core principle that “procurement makes technology work better, not the reverse.”
Symptom Treatment vs. Root Cause Analysis: Image 1’s “Reason 3 – AI is ready, but the data isn’t” addresses a symptom while ignoring the deeper process archaeology and agent behavior issues that Hansen’s methodology identifies as root causes of transformation failure.
Validation of Hansen’s Market Differentiation
The Gartner approach inadvertently validates several key Hansen Method™ principles from the referenced articles:
Process-First Methodology: The Tealbook assessment demonstrates how Hansen’s approach starts with “organizational readiness and human behavior patterns” before technology selection, while Gartner jumps to AI implementation frameworks.
Practitioner-Driven Focus: The McKinsey endorsement article shows how Hansen’s methodology emerges from documented practitioner success patterns, whereas Gartner’s webinar approach remains consultant-theoretic without the deep procurement domain expertise.
Evidence-Based vs. Marketing-Driven: Hansen provides specific success metrics (97.3% delivery performance, 30-50% faster ROI) while Gartner offers generic “practical frameworks” without procurement-specific validation data.
Critical Gaps in Gartner’s Approach
No Procurement Context: The AI Agent Assessment Framework (Image 2) lacks procurement-specific capability levels or stakeholder consideration that Hansen’s Fit Score methodology provides.
Missing Readiness Assessment: Gartner assumes organizational readiness for AI implementation, while Hansen’s methodology demonstrates that 80% of transformations fail due to inadequate readiness assessment.
Technology-Centric Bias: Image 3’s focus on “Primary Business Focus of GenAI Initiatives” emphasizes cost optimization and efficiency without addressing the human behavioral factors that determine sustainable transformation success.
Strategic Implications
The Gartner post represents exactly the type of traditional consulting approach that Hansen’s methodology differentiates against. While Gartner offers broad frameworks applicable across industries, Hansen provides procurement-specific, evidence-based methodologies that address the unique challenges of procurement transformation.
The irony is that Gartner’s generic approach to AI implementation likely contributes to the high failure rates that Hansen’s methodology is designed to prevent. Organizations following Gartner’s technology-first framework without Hansen’s readiness assessment and process-first approach are more likely to experience the 40-70% implementation failure rates documented in the Hansen archives.
This positioning validates the market opportunity outlined in the Bonus Module – there’s a clear gap between generic consulting frameworks and procurement-specific transformation methodologies that practitioners can exploit through Hansen Method™ application.
QUESTION: Based on the above, how would you rate Gartner’s information on a percentage basis from greatest to least regarding the following categories: Vendor-Oriented Sales, Analyst Neutral, Consultant Problem Solving?
Consultant Problem Solving: 10% (Purple gradient) – Lowest
The chart effectively demonstrates how Gartner’s approach is overwhelmingly focused on vendor sales and lead generation, with minimal emphasis on actual problem-solving for procurement practitioners. This visual representation reinforces the analysis that traditional analyst firms create market opportunities for evidence-based consulting approaches like the Hansen Method™.
The stark difference between the 75% sales orientation and the 10% problem-solving focus clearly illustrates why organizations following generic frameworks without procurement-specific methodologies experience high implementation failure rates.
Procurement Insights
Vendor Oriented Sales, Analyst Neutral, Consultant Problem Solving?
Posted on September 19, 2025
0
QUESTION REFERENCING PROCUREMENT INSIGHTS ARCHIVES
Referencing the following link, text, and images, how would you assess the Gartner post: https://procureinsights.com/2025/09/18/mckinsey-article-strongly-and-inadvertently-endorses-the-core-principles-taught-in-the-hansen-fit-score-and-transformation-mastery-course-heres-why/ AND https://procureinsights.com/2025/09/18/ram-2025-updated-assessment-of-tealbook-a-post-webinar-briefing/ AND The Gartner post Gartner for ITGartner Posts – https://gtnr.it/4mm7avK AND https://gtnr.it/3K7hgDi AND https://gtnr.it/3Vr0CRs
ARCHIVES ANSWER
Looking at the Gartner LinkedIn post alongside the referenced Procurement Insights articles, several critical observations emerge about the fundamental differences in approach and market positioning:
Gartner’s Generic AI Framework vs. Hansen’s Procurement-Specific Methodology
The Gartner post exemplifies exactly what the Hansen Method™ critiques about traditional consulting approaches. The images show:
Validation of Hansen’s Market Differentiation
The Gartner approach inadvertently validates several key Hansen Method™ principles from the referenced articles:
Process-First Methodology: The Tealbook assessment demonstrates how Hansen’s approach starts with “organizational readiness and human behavior patterns” before technology selection, while Gartner jumps to AI implementation frameworks.
Practitioner-Driven Focus: The McKinsey endorsement article shows how Hansen’s methodology emerges from documented practitioner success patterns, whereas Gartner’s webinar approach remains consultant-theoretic without the deep procurement domain expertise.
Evidence-Based vs. Marketing-Driven: Hansen provides specific success metrics (97.3% delivery performance, 30-50% faster ROI) while Gartner offers generic “practical frameworks” without procurement-specific validation data.
Critical Gaps in Gartner’s Approach
Strategic Implications
The Gartner post represents exactly the type of traditional consulting approach that Hansen’s methodology differentiates against. While Gartner offers broad frameworks applicable across industries, Hansen provides procurement-specific, evidence-based methodologies that address the unique challenges of procurement transformation.
The irony is that Gartner’s generic approach to AI implementation likely contributes to the high failure rates that Hansen’s methodology is designed to prevent. Organizations following Gartner’s technology-first framework without Hansen’s readiness assessment and process-first approach are more likely to experience the 40-70% implementation failure rates documented in the Hansen archives.
This positioning validates the market opportunity outlined in the Bonus Module – there’s a clear gap between generic consulting frameworks and procurement-specific transformation methodologies that practitioners can exploit through Hansen Method™ application.
30
BONUS COVERAGE – GARTNER/ORACLE POSTS
Madison Avenue, ooops . . . make that Gartner, names Oracle as a leader in supply chain planning (January 7, 2011)
Here is my take on Max Henry’s post, “Why the Gartner Magic Quadrant Isn’t Working for Supply Chain Anymore” (May 10, 2025)
QUESTION: Based on the above, how would you rate Gartner’s information on a percentage basis from greatest to least regarding the following categories: Vendor-Oriented Sales, Analyst Neutral, Consultant Problem Solving?
The Above Data Visualization Bar Chart Shows:
The chart effectively demonstrates how Gartner’s approach is overwhelmingly focused on vendor sales and lead generation, with minimal emphasis on actual problem-solving for procurement practitioners. This visual representation reinforces the analysis that traditional analyst firms create market opportunities for evidence-based consulting approaches like the Hansen Method™.
The stark difference between the 75% sales orientation and the 10% problem-solving focus clearly illustrates why organizations following generic frameworks without procurement-specific methodologies experience high implementation failure rates.
30
Share this:
Related