Even the best bolt-ons can be the wrong move when the goal is readiness, not reaction.
In procurement technology, every week brings another demo, another pitch, another “we’re different.”
But the reality is this: not every conversation should become a client engagement — and not every capable solution deserves a Hansen Fit Score.
A Call That Clarified the Difference Between Capability and Fit
I recently spoke with an executive from a procurement technology provider that’s been in the market since 2007.
They’re an SAP-native solution, focused on guided buying and catalog-driven indirect procurement. Technically competent? Absolutely. Clever integration? No question.
But after nearly two decades, they’re still generating an estimated $2.5–$5 million in annual revenue, with no visible upward trajectory.
Here’s how I summarized my impression after the call:
“I see them as a bolt-on solution — almost an API limited to SAP shops, with little value beyond that narrow scope. Yes, they do what they do well, but having been around since 2007 and with estimated revenues of only $2.5 to $5 million, I don’t see any upside or opportunity to introduce them to my growing CPO community. This may seem out of left field, but what comes to mind are the products placed at the checkout line — gum, lighters, candy bars. Something you weren’t planning to buy but grab on impulse. They’re useful, but never transformational.”
It may sound harsh, but it isn’t. It’s simply a statement of fit — or in this case, misfit.
The Hansen Fit Score Isn’t Pay-to-Play
The Hansen Fit Score (HFS) and RAM 2025 frameworks were created to measure readiness, alignment, and behavioral integrity, not to hand out endorsements.
Anyone can ask for a score. Few are ready to earn one.
BeNeering — like many niche providers — represents a recurring theme in the ProcureTech ecosystem: competent but constrained. Their strength is also their ceiling. By staying tethered to SAP’s data model, they’ve built an elegant adapter rather than a platform.
That’s fine if your goal is incremental efficiency. But it’s irrelevant if your vision is enterprise transformation.
They make the checkout faster, but they’ll never redesign the store.
Why Saying “No” Strengthens the Method
Each time I walk away from a potential engagement, it isn’t lost business — it’s proof that the process works.
The Hansen Fit Score is not a marketing filter; it’s a governance framework that separates automation theatre from genuine transformation.
This isn’t about punishing small providers. It’s about protecting alignment — ensuring that every recommendation to a CPO, CIO, or CFO reinforces long-term readiness rather than short-term reaction.
As I wrote years ago in the Procurement Insights Archives:
“The power of discernment is the true currency of transformation. Without it, even the best technology becomes just another distraction with good marketing.”
The Bottom Line
Procurement doesn’t need more bolt-ons. It needs better frameworks.
The Hansen Fit Score and RAM 2025 models weren’t built to promote solutions — they were built to prevent the 80% implementation failure rate by ensuring fit precedes adoption.
Sometimes, that means politely declining an engagement. And sometimes, that refusal is the most valuable signal of all.
30
Procurement Insights
Not Every Call Becomes a Client: Why Fit Matters More Than Revenue
Posted on October 14, 2025
0
Even the best bolt-ons can be the wrong move when the goal is readiness, not reaction.
In procurement technology, every week brings another demo, another pitch, another “we’re different.”
But the reality is this: not every conversation should become a client engagement — and not every capable solution deserves a Hansen Fit Score.
A Call That Clarified the Difference Between Capability and Fit
I recently spoke with an executive from a procurement technology provider that’s been in the market since 2007.
They’re an SAP-native solution, focused on guided buying and catalog-driven indirect procurement. Technically competent? Absolutely. Clever integration? No question.
But after nearly two decades, they’re still generating an estimated $2.5–$5 million in annual revenue, with no visible upward trajectory.
Here’s how I summarized my impression after the call:
It may sound harsh, but it isn’t. It’s simply a statement of fit — or in this case, misfit.
The Hansen Fit Score Isn’t Pay-to-Play
The Hansen Fit Score (HFS) and RAM 2025 frameworks were created to measure readiness, alignment, and behavioral integrity, not to hand out endorsements.
Anyone can ask for a score. Few are ready to earn one.
BeNeering — like many niche providers — represents a recurring theme in the ProcureTech ecosystem: competent but constrained. Their strength is also their ceiling. By staying tethered to SAP’s data model, they’ve built an elegant adapter rather than a platform.
That’s fine if your goal is incremental efficiency. But it’s irrelevant if your vision is enterprise transformation.
Why Saying “No” Strengthens the Method
Each time I walk away from a potential engagement, it isn’t lost business — it’s proof that the process works.
The Hansen Fit Score is not a marketing filter; it’s a governance framework that separates automation theatre from genuine transformation.
This isn’t about punishing small providers. It’s about protecting alignment — ensuring that every recommendation to a CPO, CIO, or CFO reinforces long-term readiness rather than short-term reaction.
As I wrote years ago in the Procurement Insights Archives:
The Bottom Line
Procurement doesn’t need more bolt-ons. It needs better frameworks.
The Hansen Fit Score and RAM 2025 models weren’t built to promote solutions — they were built to prevent the 80% implementation failure rate by ensuring fit precedes adoption.
Sometimes, that means politely declining an engagement. And sometimes, that refusal is the most valuable signal of all.
30
Share this:
Related