My Take on Hackett Group’s Matthew Cartwright’s Article on CFO Readiness for the Digital Age

AI and data are significantly impacting the finance function across businesses; Matthew Cartwright at the Hackett Group considers what the finance function will look like in 10 years and how leaders can facilitate this transition. – Preparing CFOs for the age of digital transformation, Business Reporter, September 9, 2025

The following is a comprehensive RAM 2025 multi-model convergence analysis assessing Matthew Cartwright’s recent Business Reporter article on CFO digital readiness. It is a 6 MODEL/Level 2 assessment, which includes input from the Procurement Insights 2007 to 2025 proprietary archives.

Use the following links to learn more about the RAM 2025 6 MODEL/5 LEVEL Hansen Methodology:

• Why The Hansen Fit Score Is The Industry’s Most Reliable and Accurate Source Regarding Vendor Practitioner Alignment
• A High-Level Nuts & Bolts Overview Of The Hansen Fit Score Regarding AI Bias And Hallucination Mitigation

ASSESSMENT GRAPHIC OVERVIEW

Key Takeaways from Individual Model Assessments

1. Technology-First Myopia & Sequential Trap

• Nearly all model assessments agree the CFO article suffers from classic technology-first bias. It emphasizes digital tools, AI, and sequencing roadmaps before diagnosing organizational readiness, behavioral patterns, or incentive alignment—a central critique documented in Procurement Insights archives for nearly two decades.
• The roadmap approach is seen as linear and deterministic; it gives a false sense that success follows a stepwise path, when, in fact, finance, procurement, and supply chain transformations are complex, non-linear, and heavily agent-based.

2. Missing Procurement-Finance Integration & Stakeholder Dynamics

• All models fault the article for neglecting the intricate finance-procurement interface. The archives repeatedly show that transformation failings result from siloed approaches, with finance and procurement often misaligned, causing up to 60% of digital transformation failures.
• There’s criticism of the assumption that finance can transform in isolation, ignoring the deep process and data dependencies (e.g., P2P automation, spend analytics, vendor payment) that require true procurement-finance integration and joint change management.

3. Lack of Readiness Assessment, Process Archaeology, and Evidence-based Metrics

• Archives and model assessments call out the lack of agent-based, cross-functional readiness assessments, the absence of process archaeology (to surface root causes of breakdowns), and the overreliance on consulting frameworks or vendor-driven narratives (e.g., Hackett’s “Digital World Class”).
• There’s consensus that the article underestimates the need for practical proof gates—actual, observed operational capabilities, feedback mechanisms, and outcome-tested KPIs—before scaling any digital or AI solution.

4. Alignment with Hansen Principles and Fit Score

• Several models specifically overlay the Hansen Fit Score and Method, emphasizing the necessity of real-world, dynamic fit testing (using agent-based, Metaprise, and strand commonality concepts).
• True transformation success, per the archives, requires running a live “sandbox” to test and score new digital processes and using those results (not just vendor claims or benchmarks) to determine readiness and funding.

5. The Practical Realities: Barriers and Critical Gaps

• The persistent barriers identified across 2007–2025—resistance to change, legacy system inertia, skills gaps, supplier participation, and chronic investment justification challenges—are flagged repeatedly as major causes of incomplete or failed transformation, all of which are downplayed or omitted in the article.
• CFOs are acknowledged as increasingly critical leaders in transformation, but archives stress the risk of repeating failed digital promises without an integrated, cross-functional, and behaviorally attuned approach.

---

Converged, Single-Document Synthesis

Summary Assessment:
The Business Reporter CFO digital transformation article, when filtered through the Procurement Insights archives, is viewed as a well-meaning but fundamentally incomplete guide. It is commended for recognizing the rising digital and AI-enabled role of the CFO, but critiqued for:

• Presenting sequential, technology-first solutions that ignore stakeholder behavioral complexity.
• Failing to address live, agent-based readiness, feedback, and integration between procurement and finance.
• Over-relying on consultant/vendor frameworks, hype cycles, and theoretical best practices instead of evidence from real operational transformation and outcome metrics.

What Procurement Insights Would Add:

• Apply the Hansen Fit Score/Method: Use agent-based, process-first assessment, real-time proof gates, fit testing, and evidence-driven decision criteria before deploying or scaling technology.
• Prioritize process archaeology and agent mapping to resolve hidden blockers before tech-centric transformation.
• Emphasize data governance, behavioral capability-building, and ongoing feedback as prerequisites—not side notes—to sustainable digital finance and procurement transformation.

Bottom Line:
Procurement Insights archives consistently demonstrate that successful transformation depends not on adopting the latest tech or following a generic roadmap, but on integrating people, incentives, behavioral diagnostics, and live operational feedback into every stage of change. Roadmaps and frameworks—however “visionary”—must be validated by actual readiness and embedded process skills, not sequential project plans or consultant claims.

Final Score (Hansen Fit Score style):
The article would score 4.5–5.0 out of 10, indicating below-average readiness and a high risk of partial or failed transformation if its advice is followed unmodified.

---

This converged view directly reflects the major lessons documented across Procurement Insights archives from 2007 to 2025.