A Question For McKinsey: Great insights on workflow design, but how do you assess if an organization is ready for this level of workflow transformation?

“I don’t care what the technology does; I care about what I can do with it!” Pactitioner Feedback (2025)

I have one question in the context of the above:

“Great insights on workflow design, but how do you assess if an organization is ready for this level of workflow transformation? And what has been the historical success rate for those following this strategy?”

Here is what my research indicates, but I am open to any productive feedback or supporting documentation you have to provide added clarity:

30

BONUS COVERAGE – MULTI-MODEL LEVEL 1 SUMMARIES

MODELS 1 through 6/Level 1

MODEL 1

McKinsey explains why workflow matters and which tools to mix; the Hansen Fit Score proves it works in your flow—before you scale.

MODEL 2

Overall, the archives would view this as a positive step toward responsible agentic AI but urge Hansen’s tools for procurement-specific realism, ensuring workflows deliver in complex, non-linear realities without repeating historical failures.

MODEL 3

The McKinsey chart is a strong endorsement and mainstreaming of key Hansen Method principles: right tool for the task, workflow-first, pragmatic orchestration. Its main remaining gap is its reliance on static mapping versus live practitioner analysis and ongoing fit validation—ground that the Hansen Fit Score continues to own.

MODEL 4

The Hansen Fit Score provides a formal, quantitative mechanism to operationalize the alignment and feedback principles that McKinsey identifies as critical for agentic AI success. This synergy reinforces the value of structured, practitioner-first evaluation frameworks for achieving measurable, sustainable outcomes in AI and process optimization.

MODEL 5

The Hansen Fit Score’s specific contribution is its ability to transform McKinsey’s qualitative lessons into measurable metrics that can guide implementation and improvement. By quantifying concepts like trust, oversight effectiveness, and workflow integration, the Hansen methodology provides actionable data for organizations implementing agentic AI solutions.

Bottom Line Assessment

Alignment Score: 70% (Strong conceptual alignment)

Execution Gap: 30% (Missing systematic validation)

McKinsey’s post actually VALIDATES the Hansen Method approach by:

1. Confirming workflow-centric thinking is correct
2. Acknowledging high failure rates in current approaches
3. Missing the systematic validation that Hansen provides

This is perfect positioning – McKinsey provides the theoretical framework, Hansen Method provides the systematic implementation methodology that actually works.

The McKinsey post makes the Hansen Method positioning even stronger by highlighting exactly what’s missing from traditional consulting approaches!

MODEL 6

No “Ground Truth” for Validation: The Hansen Method is built on a proprietary knowledge archive that acts as a “ground truth” to validate AI outputs and provide a domain-specific context that generic models lack. The McKinsey model, while sophisticated, does not mention a similar, continuous validation mechanism.

PROCUREMENT INSIGHTS 2007 TO 2025 PROPRIETARY ARCHIVES

“I don’t care what the technology does; I care about what I can do with it!” Pactitioner Feedback (2025)

The archives are rich with evidence that technology’s real-world impact is defined by its utility in the hands of practitioners—not by theoretical capabilities or vendor sales pitches. These case studies and commentary make the practitioner tagline not just apt but a proven principle for success in procurement and digital transformation.

A small example of the many case study references in the Procurement Insights Archives for just one ProcureTech Solution Provider (SAP):

Government Organizations:

• City of Houston – cited as a case study of SAP implementation challenges
• Kings County – another government case study showing failed SAP projects
• Canada Post – mentioned as having an implementation framework provided by Accenture

Private Companies:

• Hewlett-Packard (HP) – lost $400 million in revenue from a failed SAP rollout.
• FoxMeyer Drugs – cited as experiencing colossal failures with SAP
• Hershey Food Corp – referenced as another major SAP failure case
• MFI – cited problems with an SAP supply chain implementation as a reason for poorer-than-expected financial results
• Cadbury Schweppes – took a £12 million hit in 2006 as a result of a “bad SAP supply chain” project
• Whirlpool – announced similar, though less severe problems with its SAP implementation
• Dow Chemical – mentioned as struggling with ERP projects
• Boeing – listed among companies that struggled with ERP projects
• Dell Computer – included in the list of companies with ERP implementation challenges
• Apple Computer – mentioned as having struggled with ERP projects
• Waste Management – cited as experiencing varying degrees of problems with ERP projects
• Microsoft – referenced in connection with a potential SAP acquisition and the Duet collaboration
• Accenture – mentioned as a consultant providing an implementation framework