At DPW Amsterdam, a VP asked: “We know we need AI, but where do we even start?”
Philipp Gutheim synthesized dozens of sessions into an excellent 5-step AI rollout framework. His methodology is sound—but it’s missing the prerequisite question organizations must answer first.
Not “How do we roll out AI?” but “Are we READY to roll out AI—and what’s our success probability?”
After analyzing 27 years of implementation patterns, here’s what the data shows:
The 80% Failure Pattern
80-95% of AI implementations fail—not because rollout plans are inadequate, but because organizational readiness wasn’t assessed first.
The mathematical reality:
Strong rollout framework (8.0) × Low organizational readiness (6.5) = 52% potential realized
Even perfect execution methodology can’t overcome foundational readiness gaps.
But here’s what most organizations miss: Success isn’t determined by a single stakeholder. It’s an ecosystem equation.
[GRAPHIC 1: The Ecosystem Success Equation]
This is MULTIPLICATIVE, not additive. If any stakeholder scores near zero, the entire outcome approaches zero. Excellence from one party cannot compensate for failure from another. Success is a co-produced system property.
This is why Philipp’s rollout framework—while excellent—needs readiness assessment FIRST across the entire ecosystem, not just the practitioner organization.
Three Readiness Factors That Determine Rollout Success
Before applying any rollout framework (including Philipp’s excellent 5 steps), organizations must assess three dimensions:
1. Governance Unity: Can You Actually Execute Unified Strategy?
The challenge: Fragmented organizational authority undermines even perfect governance design.
Example: Big Pharma companies often have:
- CPO controlling back-office (~30-40% of spend)
- R&D operating independently (own IT, own procurement)
- Commercial running separate governance
- SCM/Operations with plant-specific autonomy
Result: CPO designs brilliant governance framework (Philipp’s Step 3), but lacks authority to enforce across R&D and Commercial. Enterprise AI initiative stalls despite strong planning.
Historical precedent: North Carolina’s “At Your Service” (2004)—State Procurement designed enterprise platform but independent agencies had autonomous authority. $50M+ initiative failed because authority didn’t match scope.
Assessment question: Does decision-maker authority match initiative scope, or is governance fragmented?
Scoring:
- 8.0+: Unified authority, clear mandate cascade
- 6.5-7.9: Fragmented but aligned goals
- <6.5: Multiple decision-makers, conflicting priorities
Implication: Organizations scoring <6.5 on Governance Unity should scope AI initiatives to controlled domains (back-office only) or secure CFO/CEO mandate BEFORE rollout planning.
2. Behavioral Alignment: Will People Naturally Adopt?
The challenge: Adoption programs (Philipp’s Step 4: ambassadors, hackathons, KPI shifts) can’t overcome fundamental interface friction.
Example: Two platforms, identical governance, different interfaces:
- Command-driven: Requires specific syntax, rigid workflows → 68% adoption
- Conversational: Natural language, adaptive guidance → 76% adoption
8-point adoption advantage from interface design alone.
Historical precedent: 1998 Department of National Defence RAM implementation—buyer complained “a monkey could now do my job.” Anxiety wasn’t about technology capability, it was about organizational readiness to absorb freed capacity strategically.
27 years later, agentic AI creates identical anxiety: “If AI does 60% of my work, what’s my value?”
The pattern: Technology frees capacity instantly. Strategic organizational readiness to absorb that capacity is an overlooked AI-related evolutionary process.
Assessment question: Does interface match how users naturally work, or does it fight existing workflows?
Implication: Organizations with change-resistant cultures MUST prioritize conversational interfaces (7.8+ Behavioral Alignment) over command-driven systems (7.0-7.2), regardless of feature richness.
3. Geopolitical Volatility: Is NOW the Right Time?
The challenge: External factors create rational decision paralysis independent of internal readiness.
Example: Q1 2025 pharma companies:
- Roche: New CTO transition + Trump tariff uncertainty = CFO veto on major initiatives
- Novartis: New CFO + tariff uncertainty = strategic pause
Internal readiness: Strong (8.0+ across dimensions) External volatility: High (0.7 multiplier on effective capacity) Result: “On hold” status despite excellent readiness
Assessment question: Is organizational environment stable enough for multi-year transformation commitment?
Volatility multipliers:
- 1.0: High stability (predictable policy, stable leadership, economic clarity)
- 0.9: Moderate uncertainty (minor political flux, anticipated regulatory changes)
- 0.7-0.8: High uncertainty (tariff threats, leadership transitions, regulatory debate)
- 0.5-0.6: Extreme volatility (political instability, economic crisis, regulatory chaos)
Implication: Organizations facing high volatility (0.7 or below) should delay major AI rollouts until external factors stabilize, or focus on low-risk, reversible pilots only.
Understanding Individual Stakeholder Impact
Here’s why ecosystem assessment matters: Each stakeholder contributes differently to success probability.
[GRAPHIC 2: Individual Stakeholder Impact on Practitioner Success]
What this shows:
Practitioner readiness is the foundation (25-35% variance):
- A practitioner at 6.8 vs 7.9 changes baseline success by ~30%
- Without strong practitioner readiness (canonical rails, governance maturity, change capacity), even perfect providers/analysts/consultants build on sand
- But with it, mediocre ecosystem partners become tolerable
Provider selection matters (20-30% variance):
- A provider scoring 5.5 vs 8.3 reduces success probability by ~40% even with identical practitioner readiness
- Provider’s canonical rails and agent-based maturity determine whether practitioner’s readiness investment yields ROI or gets trapped in integration hell
Analyst influence is indirect but critical (15-20% variance):
- Low analyst scores (6.7 Gartner) steer practitioners toward feature-rich but readiness-poor solutions
- When analysts prioritize “Magic Quadrant” over behavioral alignment, they systematically misdirect practitioner selection toward failure-prone configurations
Consultant execution is the multiplier (15-25% variance):
- Consultants scoring 7.0-7.4 implement “by the book” but miss behavioral nuances
- As one major consultancy’s chatbot failure proved, consultants with low behavioral alignment (6.8) create tech-first implementations that ignore practitioner’s actual readiness state, guaranteeing adoption failure
The Complementary Framework
Philipp’s 5-step rollout framework = Execution methodology (HOW)
- Start with Purpose, Not Tools
- Think Big, Start Small, Scale Fast
- Build Governance & Data Backbone
- Drive Adoption Through People
- Balance Quick Wins with Long-Term Integration
Ecosystem Readiness Assessment = Go/No-Go Decision (SHOULD)
Assess ALL four stakeholders:
- Practitioner: Governance Unity 7.5+? Behavioral Alignment 7.5+? Volatility 0.8+?
- Provider: Technical capability + behavioral alignment + readiness support all 7.5+?
- Analyst: Behavioral alignment prioritized over feature checklists?
- Consultant: Behavioral alignment strong (7.5+) not just technical methodology?
If YES across ecosystem → Apply Philipp’s rollout framework If NO → Address readiness gaps first, then rollout
The Success Formula
Organizations that assess ecosystem readiness FIRST, then apply structured rollout frameworks, achieve measurably better outcomes:
Readiness-first approach:
- Assess entire ecosystem (Practitioner × Provider × Analyst × Consultant)
- Identify weak links (any stakeholder <7.0 = risk)
- Address gaps identified
- THEN begin rollout using proven framework
- Success probability: 68-75%
Rollout-first approach:
- Jump to implementation planning
- Assume ecosystem readiness exists
- Discover gaps during execution
- Success probability: 5-20% (the 80-95% failure rate)
The math explains why:
Scenario A: Strong Ecosystem
- Practitioner: 7.8
- Provider: 8.0
- Analyst: 7.5
- Consultant: 7.6
- Rollout Framework: 8.0
Ecosystem baseline: 7.8 × 8.0 × 7.5 × 7.6 = 3,556 With strong rollout: 3,556 × 8.0 = 28,448 units of potential Success probability: ~70% ✅
Scenario B: Weak Link in Ecosystem
- Practitioner: 7.8 (same)
- Provider: 6.5 (weak canonical rails)
- Analyst: 7.5 (same)
- Consultant: 7.6 (same)
- Rollout Framework: 8.0 (same)
Ecosystem baseline: 7.8 × 6.5 × 7.5 × 7.6 = 2,889 With strong rollout: 2,889 × 8.0 = 23,112 units of potential Success probability: ~55% ❌
One weak stakeholder (Provider 6.5 vs 8.0) reduced success probability by 15 percentage points despite identical rollout framework.
Readiness assessment identifies weak links. Rollout framework executes on strong foundation.
The Question for Practitioners
When your organization asks “where do we start with AI?”, the answer isn’t immediately “Step 1: Start with Purpose.”
The answer is:
“First, assess whether our ECOSYSTEM is ready—practitioner, provider, analyst, consultant. Then, apply proven rollout methodology.”
Philipp’s framework answers the second question brilliantly.
Ecosystem readiness assessment answers the first.
Together, they give organizations what they actually need: Go/no-go decision + execution roadmap.
Credit Where Due
Huge appreciation to Philipp Gutheim for synthesizing DPW Amsterdam insights into actionable framework. His work addresses critical practitioner need (structured rollout methodology).
This analysis simply adds the prerequisite layer: How do we know our ecosystem is ready to execute that framework successfully?
Both are essential. Sequence matters.
Assess ecosystem readiness FIRST. Then roll out using proven methodology.
hashtag#AI #Procurement #SupplyChain #DigitalTransformation #DPWAmsterdam #OrganizationalReadiness #ChangeManagement #Leadership #EcosystemThinking
30
Procurement Insights
AI Rollout Frameworks Miss the Critical First Step: Readiness Assessment
Posted on October 12, 2025
0
At DPW Amsterdam, a VP asked: “We know we need AI, but where do we even start?”
Philipp Gutheim synthesized dozens of sessions into an excellent 5-step AI rollout framework. His methodology is sound—but it’s missing the prerequisite question organizations must answer first.
Not “How do we roll out AI?” but “Are we READY to roll out AI—and what’s our success probability?”
After analyzing 27 years of implementation patterns, here’s what the data shows:
The 80% Failure Pattern
80-95% of AI implementations fail—not because rollout plans are inadequate, but because organizational readiness wasn’t assessed first.
The mathematical reality:
Strong rollout framework (8.0) × Low organizational readiness (6.5) = 52% potential realized
Even perfect execution methodology can’t overcome foundational readiness gaps.
But here’s what most organizations miss: Success isn’t determined by a single stakeholder. It’s an ecosystem equation.
[GRAPHIC 1: The Ecosystem Success Equation]
This is MULTIPLICATIVE, not additive. If any stakeholder scores near zero, the entire outcome approaches zero. Excellence from one party cannot compensate for failure from another. Success is a co-produced system property.
This is why Philipp’s rollout framework—while excellent—needs readiness assessment FIRST across the entire ecosystem, not just the practitioner organization.
Three Readiness Factors That Determine Rollout Success
Before applying any rollout framework (including Philipp’s excellent 5 steps), organizations must assess three dimensions:
1. Governance Unity: Can You Actually Execute Unified Strategy?
The challenge: Fragmented organizational authority undermines even perfect governance design.
Example: Big Pharma companies often have:
Result: CPO designs brilliant governance framework (Philipp’s Step 3), but lacks authority to enforce across R&D and Commercial. Enterprise AI initiative stalls despite strong planning.
Historical precedent: North Carolina’s “At Your Service” (2004)—State Procurement designed enterprise platform but independent agencies had autonomous authority. $50M+ initiative failed because authority didn’t match scope.
Assessment question: Does decision-maker authority match initiative scope, or is governance fragmented?
Scoring:
Implication: Organizations scoring <6.5 on Governance Unity should scope AI initiatives to controlled domains (back-office only) or secure CFO/CEO mandate BEFORE rollout planning.
2. Behavioral Alignment: Will People Naturally Adopt?
The challenge: Adoption programs (Philipp’s Step 4: ambassadors, hackathons, KPI shifts) can’t overcome fundamental interface friction.
Example: Two platforms, identical governance, different interfaces:
8-point adoption advantage from interface design alone.
Historical precedent: 1998 Department of National Defence RAM implementation—buyer complained “a monkey could now do my job.” Anxiety wasn’t about technology capability, it was about organizational readiness to absorb freed capacity strategically.
27 years later, agentic AI creates identical anxiety: “If AI does 60% of my work, what’s my value?”
The pattern: Technology frees capacity instantly. Strategic organizational readiness to absorb that capacity is an overlooked AI-related evolutionary process.
Assessment question: Does interface match how users naturally work, or does it fight existing workflows?
Implication: Organizations with change-resistant cultures MUST prioritize conversational interfaces (7.8+ Behavioral Alignment) over command-driven systems (7.0-7.2), regardless of feature richness.
3. Geopolitical Volatility: Is NOW the Right Time?
The challenge: External factors create rational decision paralysis independent of internal readiness.
Example: Q1 2025 pharma companies:
Internal readiness: Strong (8.0+ across dimensions) External volatility: High (0.7 multiplier on effective capacity) Result: “On hold” status despite excellent readiness
Assessment question: Is organizational environment stable enough for multi-year transformation commitment?
Volatility multipliers:
Implication: Organizations facing high volatility (0.7 or below) should delay major AI rollouts until external factors stabilize, or focus on low-risk, reversible pilots only.
Understanding Individual Stakeholder Impact
Here’s why ecosystem assessment matters: Each stakeholder contributes differently to success probability.
[GRAPHIC 2: Individual Stakeholder Impact on Practitioner Success]
What this shows:
Practitioner readiness is the foundation (25-35% variance):
Provider selection matters (20-30% variance):
Analyst influence is indirect but critical (15-20% variance):
Consultant execution is the multiplier (15-25% variance):
The Complementary Framework
Philipp’s 5-step rollout framework = Execution methodology (HOW)
Ecosystem Readiness Assessment = Go/No-Go Decision (SHOULD)
Assess ALL four stakeholders:
If YES across ecosystem → Apply Philipp’s rollout framework If NO → Address readiness gaps first, then rollout
The Success Formula
Organizations that assess ecosystem readiness FIRST, then apply structured rollout frameworks, achieve measurably better outcomes:
Readiness-first approach:
Rollout-first approach:
The math explains why:
Scenario A: Strong Ecosystem
Ecosystem baseline: 7.8 × 8.0 × 7.5 × 7.6 = 3,556 With strong rollout: 3,556 × 8.0 = 28,448 units of potential Success probability: ~70% ✅
Scenario B: Weak Link in Ecosystem
Ecosystem baseline: 7.8 × 6.5 × 7.5 × 7.6 = 2,889 With strong rollout: 2,889 × 8.0 = 23,112 units of potential Success probability: ~55% ❌
One weak stakeholder (Provider 6.5 vs 8.0) reduced success probability by 15 percentage points despite identical rollout framework.
Readiness assessment identifies weak links. Rollout framework executes on strong foundation.
The Question for Practitioners
When your organization asks “where do we start with AI?”, the answer isn’t immediately “Step 1: Start with Purpose.”
The answer is:
“First, assess whether our ECOSYSTEM is ready—practitioner, provider, analyst, consultant. Then, apply proven rollout methodology.”
Philipp’s framework answers the second question brilliantly.
Ecosystem readiness assessment answers the first.
Together, they give organizations what they actually need: Go/no-go decision + execution roadmap.
Credit Where Due
Huge appreciation to Philipp Gutheim for synthesizing DPW Amsterdam insights into actionable framework. His work addresses critical practitioner need (structured rollout methodology).
This analysis simply adds the prerequisite layer: How do we know our ecosystem is ready to execute that framework successfully?
Both are essential. Sequence matters.
Assess ecosystem readiness FIRST. Then roll out using proven methodology.
hashtag#AI #Procurement #SupplyChain #DigitalTransformation #DPWAmsterdam #OrganizationalReadiness #ChangeManagement #Leadership #EcosystemThinking
30
Share this:
Related