I recently noticed that Leah Cronlund from Accenture—one of the few people I’ve encountered with formal Ontologize accreditation—started following my work on strand commonality theory. At least, that is why I think she decided to follow me. It prompted me to reflect on the connection between ontology and procurement transformation.
The Problem: We’re Integrating Systems, Not Ontologies
Tim Cummins’ recent WorldCC research reveals that 69% of organizations encounter disconnects between legal protection and financial opportunities during contract negotiations. Buy-side value erosion (11.8%) is 80% worse than sell-side (6.5%).
This isn’t just poor execution. It’s ontological misalignment.
Finance views contracts through an ontology of “P&L impact and total cost.” Legal views them through “risk mitigation and protection.” Procurement views them through the lens of “purchase price variance and compliance.”
These aren’t just different priorities—they’re fundamentally incompatible frameworks for understanding what contracts are for.
Virginia 2014: Creating Ontological Alignment Through Forced Dialogue
When we brought finance and procurement professionals together at tables for the first time in Virginia, they discovered that they’d been optimizing for different definitions of “value” despite working in the same organization for years.
The breakthrough wasn’t deploying better technology. It was creating what I call “strand commonality“—identifying the conceptual threads both functions could align around, then negotiating a shared ontology for understanding value.
That’s why the Commonwealth flew a flag over the State Capitol: not for systems integration, but for ontological alignment that made integration possible.
Why Technology-First Approaches Fail
When Spend Matters prescribes “CLM-ERP integration with AI orchestration,” they’re assuming ontological alignment already exists. However, if Legal, Procurement, and Finance operate from incompatible frameworks, integration merely automates confusion more quickly.
You can’t integrate systems until you’ve integrated ontologies.
Executable Ontology: The Formal Framework
For those interested in the formal methodology behind ontological transformation, this video provides an excellent overview of executable ontology in practice:
The Synthesis
My 1998 strand commonality theory argued that organizations succeed when they identify and align around common conceptual threads across functions, rather than forcing integration through process standardization.
Virginia 2014 proved it works: forced dialogue revealed ontological misalignment, negotiation created shared understanding, and then systems could amplify that alignment.
Tim Cummins’ 2025 research validates the cost of not doing this work: systematic value destruction when functions operate from incompatible ontological frameworks.
The question isn’t “which function should own contracts?” It’s “how do we create the ontological alignment that makes shared ownership possible?”
Technology amplifies whatever ontological state you’re in—aligned or misaligned. The hard work is creating alignment first.
Curious to hear from others navigating this challenge. Leah Cronlund, Tim Cummins, Xavier Olivera, Thierry Fausten, Dawn Tiura
Procurement Insights
You Can’t Integrate Systems Until You’ve Integrated Ontologies
Posted on October 1, 2025
0
I recently noticed that Leah Cronlund from Accenture—one of the few people I’ve encountered with formal Ontologize accreditation—started following my work on strand commonality theory. At least, that is why I think she decided to follow me. It prompted me to reflect on the connection between ontology and procurement transformation.
The Problem: We’re Integrating Systems, Not Ontologies
Tim Cummins’ recent WorldCC research reveals that 69% of organizations encounter disconnects between legal protection and financial opportunities during contract negotiations. Buy-side value erosion (11.8%) is 80% worse than sell-side (6.5%).
This isn’t just poor execution. It’s ontological misalignment.
Finance views contracts through an ontology of “P&L impact and total cost.” Legal views them through “risk mitigation and protection.” Procurement views them through the lens of “purchase price variance and compliance.”
These aren’t just different priorities—they’re fundamentally incompatible frameworks for understanding what contracts are for.
Virginia 2014: Creating Ontological Alignment Through Forced Dialogue
When we brought finance and procurement professionals together at tables for the first time in Virginia, they discovered that they’d been optimizing for different definitions of “value” despite working in the same organization for years.
The breakthrough wasn’t deploying better technology. It was creating what I call “strand commonality“—identifying the conceptual threads both functions could align around, then negotiating a shared ontology for understanding value.
That’s why the Commonwealth flew a flag over the State Capitol: not for systems integration, but for ontological alignment that made integration possible.
Why Technology-First Approaches Fail
When Spend Matters prescribes “CLM-ERP integration with AI orchestration,” they’re assuming ontological alignment already exists. However, if Legal, Procurement, and Finance operate from incompatible frameworks, integration merely automates confusion more quickly.
You can’t integrate systems until you’ve integrated ontologies.
Executable Ontology: The Formal Framework
For those interested in the formal methodology behind ontological transformation, this video provides an excellent overview of executable ontology in practice:
The Synthesis
My 1998 strand commonality theory argued that organizations succeed when they identify and align around common conceptual threads across functions, rather than forcing integration through process standardization.
Virginia 2014 proved it works: forced dialogue revealed ontological misalignment, negotiation created shared understanding, and then systems could amplify that alignment.
Tim Cummins’ 2025 research validates the cost of not doing this work: systematic value destruction when functions operate from incompatible ontological frameworks.
The question isn’t “which function should own contracts?” It’s “how do we create the ontological alignment that makes shared ownership possible?”
Technology amplifies whatever ontological state you’re in—aligned or misaligned. The hard work is creating alignment first.
Curious to hear from others navigating this challenge. Leah Cronlund, Tim Cummins, Xavier Olivera, Thierry Fausten, Dawn Tiura
30
BONUS COVERAGE – THE VISUAL VERSION OF THE ABOVE
Share this:
Related