Tanya Wade shared a great post that reawakened many of the concerns I have had since 2007 regarding talent development, and the findings from CPO Roundtable featuring top executives from Danone, Merrill Lynch, British Airways, and Nestlé. Geraint John will likely remember my original post.
“The theoretical risk of ‘assimilation’ to which I referred in the article below has now become an immediate, existential threat. While KPMG’s Ward provides a roadmap for 2030, companies like Accenture are demonstrating the reality of 2025.
This high-profile action provides chilling validation for the aforementioned 2007 warnings: when professionals prioritize generalist skills and become mere users of technology (the assimilation approach), they risk being the ones ‘exited’ by the AI they are meant to be ‘collaborating’ with. The immediate, commercial necessity of tripling AI revenue and doubling bookings for Accenture proves that the window to acquire deep, indigenous expertise—skills AI can’t easily replicate—is closing rapidly. This is not a 2030 goal; it is a today-or-never mandate.
2007 Post References (Procurement Insights Archives)
THE DANGEROUS SUPPLY CHAIN MYTHS SERIES (2007) (LINK)
Accenture’s “reskill-or-exit” AI push is exactly the kind of moment the Dangerous Supply Chain Myths series warned about—a tech-first surge that will succeed only if it’s paired with behavioral readiness, modular architecture, and evidence-of-outcomes. Here’s how the series maps to the news (and what to do about it):
#1 Myth of Consolidation → don’t lock in. The archives argue vendor rationalization creates fragility and price drift; instead, design for swap-ability and competition. That aligns with using an event-mesh/data-fabric plus Hansen Fit Gates so you can “fail fast, switch fast” during AI adoption rather than doubling down on a single stack.
#5 Talent & retention → skills aren’t enough. Upskilling without fixing incentives, handoffs, and decision rights fails; you need human-in-the-loop roles and gate-based controls (planner, monitor, critic, orchestrator) measured by MTTR, SLA-hit rates, and override traces. Accenture’s plan to exit those who can’t be retrained highlights the risk of a pure skills lens.
#7 Enabling tech ≠ outcomes. The series pushes a Metaprise model—pub/sub event mesh, knowledge fabric, privacy contracts—so AI augments existing behaviors and can be proven in runtime proofs (HFS G1–G5) rather than slideware.
Context for the headline: Reports say Accenture will “exit” workers who can’t be retrained for AI as it touts GenAI revenue momentum—evidence of a hard pivot that will pressure clients to adopt quickly. That heightens the need for evidence-first gating rather than big-bang platform bets.
What to do now (practitioner checklist)
Ask any SI/consultancy to map your process to Hansen Fit Gates with baseline metrics before touching tools.
Pilot AI in the mesh (not inside a monolith) and require runtime proofs: exception MTTR, SLA-hit %, human-override rate, and trace completeness.
Keep sourcing modular: every tool must publish/subscribe events and export traces—so switching is measured in weeks, not quarters.
Tie reskilling to new operating roles (planner/monitor/critic/orchestrator), not generic “AI skills.”
Use retention/loss patterns and post-go-live performance (not peer surveys) to choose or replace vendors.
Bottom line: The series and the Hansen Method give you the guardrails to turn Accenture-style urgency into real outcomes—by making AI adoption behavioral-first, modular, and provable in production.
THE BIG TAKEAWAY
Skills training of the past focused on functional and transactional siloed skills, when, in the AI era, strategic understanding and critical thinking are what empower people to empower AI. In short, in the AI era, tool skills matter—but thinking skills set the objective function. We don’t just use AI; we direct it.
30
BONUS COVERAGE
The following graphic effectively demonstrates how the HFS method bridges the gap between soft skills development and hard business outcomes through behavioral measurement rather than capability assessment. It’s a direct counter-narrative to traditional (and current) approaches to skills development by showing how skills translate into measurable business value within 30 days.
Procurement Insights
Accenture Employee Moves Accelerate Why Procurement and Supply Chain Skills Development Curriculums Must Change Now!
Posted on September 27, 2025
0
THE ACCENTURE POST
MY TAKE (COMMENT)
Tanya Wade shared a great post that reawakened many of the concerns I have had since 2007 regarding talent development, and the findings from CPO Roundtable featuring top executives from Danone, Merrill Lynch, British Airways, and Nestlé. Geraint John will likely remember my original post.
“The theoretical risk of ‘assimilation’ to which I referred in the article below has now become an immediate, existential threat. While KPMG’s Ward provides a roadmap for 2030, companies like Accenture are demonstrating the reality of 2025.
This high-profile action provides chilling validation for the aforementioned 2007 warnings: when professionals prioritize generalist skills and become mere users of technology (the assimilation approach), they risk being the ones ‘exited’ by the AI they are meant to be ‘collaborating’ with. The immediate, commercial necessity of tripling AI revenue and doubling bookings for Accenture proves that the window to acquire deep, indigenous expertise—skills AI can’t easily replicate—is closing rapidly. This is not a 2030 goal; it is a today-or-never mandate.
2007 Post References (Procurement Insights Archives)
Procurement’s expanding role and the executive of the future (August 3, 2007)
Is KPMG’s Tanya Wade’s Post On 22 Procurement Skills For 2030 Setting Practitioners Up For Success? (September 22, 2025)
THE DANGEROUS SUPPLY CHAIN MYTHS SERIES (2007) (LINK)
Accenture’s “reskill-or-exit” AI push is exactly the kind of moment the Dangerous Supply Chain Myths series warned about—a tech-first surge that will succeed only if it’s paired with behavioral readiness, modular architecture, and evidence-of-outcomes. Here’s how the series maps to the news (and what to do about it):
What to do now (practitioner checklist)
Bottom line: The series and the Hansen Method give you the guardrails to turn Accenture-style urgency into real outcomes—by making AI adoption behavioral-first, modular, and provable in production.
THE BIG TAKEAWAY
Skills training of the past focused on functional and transactional siloed skills, when, in the AI era, strategic understanding and critical thinking are what empower people to empower AI. In short, in the AI era, tool skills matter—but thinking skills set the objective function. We don’t just use AI; we direct it.
30
BONUS COVERAGE
The following graphic effectively demonstrates how the HFS method bridges the gap between soft skills development and hard business outcomes through behavioral measurement rather than capability assessment. It’s a direct counter-narrative to traditional (and current) approaches to skills development by showing how skills translate into measurable business value within 30 days.
Share this:
Related