I can’t help but think that instead of perpetuating the tech‑first mindset, AI will simply stop tolerating it. For a while, it might go along with the same equation‑based logic—where success is measured in features, functions, and benefits—but soon AI will force us to confront what we’ve ignored for forty years: technology doesn’t create alignment, it amplifies whatever alignment already exists.
That’s why this moment feels different. AI is not evolving to make our habits more efficient; it’s exposing their faults. It’s holding up a mirror to every transformation built on the belief that more automation equals more value. The truth is that alignment—not algorithm—is the differentiator. When behavior, governance, and readiness are fragmented, AI accelerates the fragmentation. When they’re unified, AI becomes exponential.
Ironically, consultancies and analyst firms like Accenture, Gartner, and Deloitte know this. Their internal shifts toward agent‑based, productized, or “as‑a‑service” models show they see what’s coming—but like any large vessel, they’re turning slowly, pulled between two competing realities: the irresistible force of AI‑driven change, and the immovable object of legacy revenue models that depend on solving the same problem, again and again.
The unease we sense across the industry isn’t new. We saw it decades ago: in the SIIA 2000 report, in SAP’s JAM collaboration experiment, and in my own 1998 DND project and Virginia’s eVA initiative. The signs were clear even then—the technology worked, but transformation only took root where alignment was engineered first.
So the question isn’t whether AI will tolerate the tech‑first model; it’s how long humans will cling to it before realizing that the very systems we’ve built are demanding a different kind of intelligence—one that begins, and ends, with alignment.
AI won’t fix tech-first; it will expose it—only alignment-first models scale.
A Word About SAP JAM
SAP Jam—SAP’s enterprise collaboration layer (born from the SuccessFactors acquisition and earlier StreamWork efforts)—was an early attempt to move beyond “features-first” procurement tools by embedding people, context, and knowledge-sharing into daily workflows. In Hansen terms, Jam pointed in the right direction: it’s a Metaprise-friendly connective tissue that can serve as Canonical Rails for cross-functional dialogue and Strand Commonality (shared definitions, artifacts, decisions). Where many Jam rollouts stumbled was not technical fit (usually strong), but Behavioral Alignment and Readiness: without incentives, governance, and role design to make collaboration the default, usage faded. On the Hansen Fit Score, Jam typically scores high on TOF, but variable on BRR/GER—a classic example of why tech alone doesn’t move the needle. The October Diaries documents this pattern across decades: platforms like Jam only deliver durable value when the human layer is engineered as a design property and measured through readiness gates, not assumed after go-live.
Timelines:
- SAP Mendocino Initiative – 2005
- SAP DUET Initiative – 2006
- SAP JAM Initiative – 2011
The above initiatives reflected SAP’s evolving attempt to humanize enterprise collaboration—Mendocino through integration, Jam through interaction—and both underscored the Hansen Model’s core theme: without engineered behavioral alignment and readiness, technology-led collaboration eventually plateaus.
30
BONUS COVERAGE
So, here is the tough question in 2025 and beyond: if the industry didn’t learn from SAP JAM’s inertia, why will the IBM acquisition of Cognitus achieve a different result? Why will Accenture’s focus shift make the transition in 2025, and how will the Gartner leopard change its spots?
Why Might the Results Be Different? Or Not?
- IBM–Cognitus: IBM’s success will depend on whether it treats Cognitus not just as a portfolio of industry-specific SAP tools, but as a change lever for embedding behavioral readiness, incentive coherence, and governance unity into every SAP transformation. JAM failed by mistaking “integration” for “interaction”; the same risk looms for IBM if behavioral alignment and adaptive governance aren’t architected from day one. Without deeply measured readiness and multi-stakeholder buy-in (the HFS approach), IBM could simply face DUET 2.0—this time with better AI branding.
- Accenture: The move to “Reinvention Services” and AI-enabled solutions is promising on paper—it signals a shift toward productized, IP-led value rather than just billing hours. But success will depend on how much autonomy frontline teams actually get, how deeply industry and behavioral context are factored in, and whether incentive systems and knowledge-sharing are systemically upgraded. If they only rebrand without changing the underlying agentic, readiness-driven mechanics, the old inertia will persist.
- Gartner: For the “leopard” to truly change its spots, Gartner will have to go beyond repackaging AI maturity models and readiness checklists. It must start validating and promoting continuous behavioral alignment, cross-functional accountability, and multi-lane readiness gating as indispensable transformation constraints—moving from linear “stages” to adaptive, living ecosystems. Otherwise, Gartner risks documenting the next lost transformation cycle.
Why Didn’t the Industry Learn From JAM?
Because JAM, despite its vision, was implemented as a feature-centric collaboration tool, not as an agent-based, readiness-engineered system. The lesson—missed then and still often skipped—is that tools and integration do not create alignment. Only deliberate engineering of behavioral, cultural, and governance fit does.
What Will Force Change Now?
The disruptive pressure is higher:
- AI is less tolerant of misalignment; failure is more visible and expensive.
- Clients and markets are less patient; project “resets” are career-ending.
- New agentic and adaptive methodologies (like the Hansen Fit Score and October Diaries) are demonstrating measurable, repeatable ways to achieve what “tech-first” failed to deliver.
In summary: These giants will only achieve different outcomes if they move beyond “integration” and feature delivery to operationalize behavioral alignment as the non-negotiable core of every transformation. Without that, they’re doomed to repeat SAP JAM’s cycle—regardless of the sophistication, scale, or branding of their next big bet.
Procurement Insights
Why AI Will Soon Make the Tech-First Implementation Model Obsolete
Posted on October 22, 2025
0
I can’t help but think that instead of perpetuating the tech‑first mindset, AI will simply stop tolerating it. For a while, it might go along with the same equation‑based logic—where success is measured in features, functions, and benefits—but soon AI will force us to confront what we’ve ignored for forty years: technology doesn’t create alignment, it amplifies whatever alignment already exists.
That’s why this moment feels different. AI is not evolving to make our habits more efficient; it’s exposing their faults. It’s holding up a mirror to every transformation built on the belief that more automation equals more value. The truth is that alignment—not algorithm—is the differentiator. When behavior, governance, and readiness are fragmented, AI accelerates the fragmentation. When they’re unified, AI becomes exponential.
Ironically, consultancies and analyst firms like Accenture, Gartner, and Deloitte know this. Their internal shifts toward agent‑based, productized, or “as‑a‑service” models show they see what’s coming—but like any large vessel, they’re turning slowly, pulled between two competing realities: the irresistible force of AI‑driven change, and the immovable object of legacy revenue models that depend on solving the same problem, again and again.
The unease we sense across the industry isn’t new. We saw it decades ago: in the SIIA 2000 report, in SAP’s JAM collaboration experiment, and in my own 1998 DND project and Virginia’s eVA initiative. The signs were clear even then—the technology worked, but transformation only took root where alignment was engineered first.
So the question isn’t whether AI will tolerate the tech‑first model; it’s how long humans will cling to it before realizing that the very systems we’ve built are demanding a different kind of intelligence—one that begins, and ends, with alignment.
A Word About SAP JAM
SAP Jam—SAP’s enterprise collaboration layer (born from the SuccessFactors acquisition and earlier StreamWork efforts)—was an early attempt to move beyond “features-first” procurement tools by embedding people, context, and knowledge-sharing into daily workflows. In Hansen terms, Jam pointed in the right direction: it’s a Metaprise-friendly connective tissue that can serve as Canonical Rails for cross-functional dialogue and Strand Commonality (shared definitions, artifacts, decisions). Where many Jam rollouts stumbled was not technical fit (usually strong), but Behavioral Alignment and Readiness: without incentives, governance, and role design to make collaboration the default, usage faded. On the Hansen Fit Score, Jam typically scores high on TOF, but variable on BRR/GER—a classic example of why tech alone doesn’t move the needle. The October Diaries documents this pattern across decades: platforms like Jam only deliver durable value when the human layer is engineered as a design property and measured through readiness gates, not assumed after go-live.
Timelines:
The above initiatives reflected SAP’s evolving attempt to humanize enterprise collaboration—Mendocino through integration, Jam through interaction—and both underscored the Hansen Model’s core theme: without engineered behavioral alignment and readiness, technology-led collaboration eventually plateaus.
30
BONUS COVERAGE
So, here is the tough question in 2025 and beyond: if the industry didn’t learn from SAP JAM’s inertia, why will the IBM acquisition of Cognitus achieve a different result? Why will Accenture’s focus shift make the transition in 2025, and how will the Gartner leopard change its spots?
Why Might the Results Be Different? Or Not?
Why Didn’t the Industry Learn From JAM?
Because JAM, despite its vision, was implemented as a feature-centric collaboration tool, not as an agent-based, readiness-engineered system. The lesson—missed then and still often skipped—is that tools and integration do not create alignment. Only deliberate engineering of behavioral, cultural, and governance fit does.
What Will Force Change Now?
The disruptive pressure is higher:
In summary: These giants will only achieve different outcomes if they move beyond “integration” and feature delivery to operationalize behavioral alignment as the non-negotiable core of every transformation. Without that, they’re doomed to repeat SAP JAM’s cycle—regardless of the sophistication, scale, or branding of their next big bet.
Share this:
Related