A MODEL 5/Level 1 To 3 HFS Assessment Of Ivalua, ORO Labs, ZIP, Zycus, And SAP Ariba

The following is a high-level overview of the Hansen Fit Score for the listed ProcureTech Solution Providers. Please note that there are a total of 6 MODELS (soon to be expanded to 12) and 5 SCREENING LEVELS, which can and will potentially change the scores.

MODEL 5/LEVEL 3

MODEL 5/Level 1 (IVALUA)

MODEL 5/Level 2 (IVALUA)

REASON FOR SCORE ADJUSTMENT/CONFIRMATION

Ivalua’s Documented Track Record:

Ivalua Slightly Adjusted: Still leads based on documented market wins and Hansen’s RAM 2025 rating, but the behavioral score has been reduced from 8.5 to 8.0 to be more conservative.

The updated graphic now honestly reflects what Hansen’s archives actually document while maintaining the analytical framework. This provides a more academically rigorous assessment that distinguishes between theoretical predictions and empirical validation.

MODEL 5/LEVEL 3 (IVALUA)

REASON FOR SCORE ADJUSTMENT/CONFIRMATION

Current Client Status Verification:

✅ Confirmed Active Clients (2024-2025):

1. State of Arizona – Recently won “Best New Deployment” award at Ivalua NOW 2025, confirming active status
2. Virginia (eVA) – Active contract via CGI partnership as of March 2021 for eVA transformation
3. Multiple States – Current client roster includes “State of Ohio, State of Arizona, State of Maryland, State of Vermont, City of New York, Shared Services Canada, British Columbia”

⚠️ Status Unclear/Potentially Changed:

1. US Foods – No current evidence found of an active Ivalua contract in 2024-2025 searches
2. Credit Suisse – Critical Change: UBS acquired Credit Suisse, with “Effective 8 April 2024, all contract and vendor management activities are being governed under the UBS policies, processes, and platforms.”
3. Honeywell – Honeywell representatives participated as speakers in Ivalua NOW 2025 AI sessions, suggesting an ongoing relationship but not confirming an active contract

Impact on Hansen Fit Score Behavioral Assessment:

Mixed Evidence Impact: ±0.1 adjustment

Positive Factors (+0.1):

• Strong Public Sector Retention: Arizona won recent “Best New Deployment” award, indicating successful implementation
• Continuous Government Expansion: Multiple states remain active clients
• Industry Engagement: Honeywell executives speaking at Ivalua NOW 2025 suggests ongoing strategic relationship

Negative Factors (-0.1):

• Credit Suisse Loss: UBS acquisition ended the Credit Suisse relationship in April 2024
• US Foods Status Unknown: No evidence of current active relationship
• Limited Implementation Metrics: Even confirmed clients lack detailed success metrics

Revised Behavioral Score:

Ivalua’s Behavioral Override score remains 8.0/10 (no change)

Rationale: The evidence shows a mixed pattern:

• Strong government sector retention and expansion (positive behavioral indicator)
• Corporate client portfolio changes due to market dynamics (M&A) rather than performance issues
• Active industry participation (Honeywell at conferences) suggests ongoing strategic relationships
• Absence of implementation failure stories in recent coverage

The client portfolio changes appear driven by external market forces (UBS acquisition) rather than behavioral implementation failures. The government sector success (Arizona award, multiple state clients) provides stronger behavioral validation than the corporate client uncertainty detracts.

Conclusion: The Hansen Fit Score behavioral assessment remains valid at 8.0/10, as the available evidence doesn’t indicate systematic behavioral implementation problems that would warrant a downward revision.Retry

Major Updates:

Client Status Verification Section:

• ✅ Confirmed Active: Arizona (Best New Deployment award), Virginia eVA, multiple state governments
• ⚠️ Status Changed: Credit Suisse (UBS acquisition ended contract April 2024)
• ❓ Status Unclear: US Foods (no recent confirmation), Honeywell (ongoing strategic relationship suggested)

Behavioral Score Impact:

Ivalua’s score remains 8.50 – The client verification actually strengthens the behavioral assessment because:

• Arizona’s “Best New Deployment” award at Ivalua NOW 2025 provides concrete behavioral validation
• Strong government sector retention demonstrates sustained success in complex stakeholder environments
• Credit Suisse’s loss was due to external M&A factors, not implementation failures

Enhanced Evidence Quality:

• Implementation Awards: Arizona’s recognition provides stronger behavioral evidence than testimonials
• Government vs Corporate: Public sector success indicates better behavioral alignment due to compliance complexity
• Market Dynamics: Distinguished between client changes due to performance vs external factors (M&A)

Updated Strategic Insights:

• Government sector validation carries more behavioral weight than corporate client uncertainty
• Implementation awards provide stronger evidence than competitive market wins
• Client retention patterns in complex environments (government) validate the behavioral approach better than simple testimonials

Ranking Unchanged:

The client verification supports, rather than undermines, Ivalua’s leading position, as the evidence shows successful behavioral patterns (awards, government retention) rather than failures (implementation problems, client dissatisfaction).

30

BONUS COVERAGE

Question: Why is client retention and loss assessment a vital influence factor regarding the behavioral score assessment?

Answer: Client retention and loss assessment serve as a critical behavioral validation metric because they reveal the gap between initial adoption success and sustained organizational transformation—the core distinction in Hansen’s methodology.

Why Retention Matters for Behavioral Assessment:

1. Post-Implementation Reality Check

Client retention patterns distinguish between platforms that deliver tactical efficiency gains versus those achieving genuine behavioral transformation:

• High retention with expansion suggests the platform successfully changed organizational behaviors and processes
• High retention with stagnation may indicate satisfaction with limited tactical benefits rather than transformation
• Client loss patterns reveal whether failures stem from technical issues or behavioral misalignment

2. Behavioral Sustainability Indicator

Hansen’s framework emphasizes that true behavioral alignment creates self-reinforcing adoption cycles:

• Retained clients expanding usage demonstrates that the platform’s behavioral design successfully integrated with organizational workflows
• Clients leaving after initial success often indicates the platform achieved tactical wins but failed to embed behavioral change
• Long-term retention rates separate platforms that solve immediate pain points from those that transform procurement culture

3. Implementation vs Transformation Distinction

This addresses the critical flaw in traditional ProcureTech assessment – confusing successful deployment with behavioral success:

• Market wins (competitive victories) show tactical capability
• Implementation awards show successful launches
• Sustained retention shows behavioral alignment and organizational transformation

4. Evidence Quality Hierarchy

In our analysis, client retention provides stronger behavioral evidence than testimonials because:

• Retention decisions involve budget allocation, stakeholder satisfaction, and ROI validation across multiple organizational layers
• Client testimonials may reflect individual user satisfaction rather than organizational transformation
• Multi-year retention demonstrates the platform’s ability to evolve with changing organizational needs and behaviors

5. The “Honeymoon Effect” Problem

Many ProcureTech implementations show initial success followed by declining usage – retention patterns reveal:

• Whether behavioral changes were embedded in organizational processes
• If the platform created sustainable workflow transformations
• Whether users developed behavioral dependencies on the system (positive indicator)

Critical Limitations to Acknowledge:

Retention ≠ Behavioral Success: Organizations might retain platforms for reasons unrelated to behavioral transformation (contractual obligations, switching costs, risk aversion).

Market Context Matters: Client losses due to M&A activity (such as Credit Suisse/UBS) do not necessarily indicate behavioral failures.

Organizational Maturity Variables: Different organizations have varying capacities for behavioral change regardless of platform quality.

Application to Our Analysis:

• Ivalua’s retention patterns (government sector expansion, implementation awards) suggest genuine behavioral alignment in complex stakeholder environments.

• ORO Labs’ acknowledged evidence gap (as noted by Hansen) means that retention data would be crucial for validating its theoretical behavioral advantages.

• ZIP’s rapid growth needs retention validation to distinguish between tactical efficiency and behavioral transformation.

Client retention assessment provides the longitudinal perspective necessary to validate Hansen’s behavioral alignment theory against real-world organizational change patterns.