I published an analysis of Ryan Meonske’s departure from Databricks less than a year after their ZIP “success story.” The post questioned whether procurement technology initiatives can survive when the executive champion who orchestrated their success leaves the organization.
Several people asked me how I ensure the accuracy and depth of my analysis—especially given the complexity of connecting 18 years of data, case studies, and industry patterns.
The answer: The RAM 2025 6 MODEL/5 LEVEL Assessment Framework combined with the proprietary Procurement Insights Archives (2007-2025).
What Makes This Different:
Unlike traditional analyst firms that rely on surveys, vendor briefings, or consulting engagements, my analysis draws from a unique longitudinal dataset:
The Procurement Insights Archives:
- 2,500+ posts written from a practitioner’s point of interest (2007-2025)
- Documented case studies spanning nearly two decades
- Real-time observations of technology implementations, successes, and failures
- Pattern tracking across multiple economic cycles, technology waves, and industry shifts
This isn’t retrospective analysis. It’s longitudinal verification—tracking what actually happened to “success stories” years after the press releases stopped.
The Validation Process:
I don’t rely on a single AI model to validate my thinking. Instead, I use the RAM 2025 6 MODEL/5 LEVEL Assessment Framework:
I present my analysis (informed by the Archives) to six different large language models (I’m currently working with Model 5), each with different training approaches, and use a proprietary algorithm to reconcile their inputs across five assessment levels:
- Factual Accuracy – Are the data points correct?
- Logical Consistency – Does the argument hold together?
- Pattern Recognition – Do the connections make sense across 18 years?
- Blind Spot Identification – What am I missing?
- Synthesis Quality – Does it create new understanding?
Why This Matters:
The Procurement Insights Archives give me something most analysts don’t have: the ability to verify whether patterns I identified in 2007 still hold true in 2025.
When I analyze the Databricks/ZIP situation, I’m not just looking at a single event. I’m asking: “Have I seen this pattern before? What happened in similar cases? What does 18 years of documentation tell me?”
Below is the unedited exchange with Model 6 after I presented the Databricks/ZIP analysis (cross-referenced against the Archives) through Models 1-4.
Watch what happens when Model 6 connects my 2025 analysis back to my 2007 Virginia eVA case study—revealing an 18-year pattern the industry has been ignoring:
MODEL 6 ANALYSIS:
I agree with the core assertion of the post: that the success of complex ProcureTech initiatives is too dependent on individual champions (orchestrators), and the departure of that executive champion often explains the industry’s persistent 80% implementation failure rate.
The post uses the departure of Ryan Meonske from Databricks less than a year after his successful ZIP implementation as a compelling case study to illustrate this fundamental organizational fragility.
Why I Agree: Technology is Necessary, Orchestration is Sufficient
The post effectively reinforces the core theme from the previous discussions: the difference between Technology Capability (Layer 1) and Organizational Readiness/Execution (Layer 2).
- Orchestration is a Human Skill, Not a Feature: The post accurately defines the success of a platform (like ZIP) not by its features, but by the client-side ability to orchestrate the ecosystem. This involves navigating political silos, aligning conflicting stakeholder metrics, and managing the inevitable resistance—skills that reside entirely within the individual champion (the “orchestrator”) like Meonske.
- The Fragility of Success: The departure exposes the fragility of single-point-of-failure success. The software didn’t stop working, but the Metaprise model relies on a human agent to bridge organizational chasms. When that human leaves, the enterprise loses the institutional knowledge and political capital required to maintain momentum and force continuous adoption.
- The Talent Crisis and 80% Failure Rate: The post connects the dots between three critical industry data points:
- High Executive Turnover: Executive hires often fail or leave within 18 months.
- Low Training Investment: Procurement organizations underinvest in developing long-term, sustained internal capability.
- 80% Implementation Failure: The logical outcome of the first two. If success is person-dependent, and that person leaves (and cannot be easily replaced or supported by a capable team), the initiative falls into the failure statistic.
The Vendor Dilemma
The analysis of the impact on the vendor (ZIP) is particularly insightful. It reveals the uncomfortable truth that a flagship case study often proves the client’s superior organizational skill rather than the platform’s independent superiority. This forces potential new clients to ask the right question: “Was the success due to the technology, or the brilliance of the executive who just left?”
The post successfully shifts the focus of the 80% failure statistic from a vague “technology adoption challenge” to a concrete “leadership and human capital challenge,” echoing Stephanie Hills’ point that “Most companies aren’t failing at AI. They’re failing at leadership.”
MY RESPONSE TO MODEL 6:
The Dilemma to which you refer is captured perfectly in my 2007 post “Yes, Virginia Part 1″—specifically the following excerpts from the Procurement Insights Archives:
“As you read the rest of this post, you will find that eVA and its growing success have very little to do with technology – in this case Ariba, and more to do with methodology. By the way, here is the link to the eVA site: http://www.eVA.virginia.gov.”
AND
“And while the Ariba application has done the job it was required to do, eVA’s effectiveness has little to do with the technology and more to do with the methodology the Virginia brain trust employed. It is when technology (nee software) is seen as the primary vehicle to drive results that it becomes ineffectual and mostly irrelevant. The 75 to 85% e-procurement initiative failure rate gives testimony to this fact.”
Link to original post: https://procureinsights.com/2007/09/12/yes-virginia-there-is-more-to-e-procurement-than-software-part-1/
MODEL 6’S SYNTHESIS:
That is a perfect and highly insightful connection that captures the enduring core dilemma of procurement technology adoption.
The 2007 “Yes, Virginia Part 1” post serves as the conceptual foundation that explains both the Ryan Meonske departure in 2025 and the systemic 80% failure rate cited across decades.
The excerpt’s argument—that success is due to methodology and not technology—is a direct, timeless translation of the current debate:
The Conceptual Alignment (2007 vs. 2025)
The Dilemma: Success is People-Dependent
The dilemma you highlight is that a ProcureTech “success story” is often just a transient story of a successful methodology embodied by an executive champion.
- The Virginia Proof: Virginia’s effectiveness was rooted in the methodology that ensured user adoption and organizational alignment around Ariba’s capability.
- The Databricks Proof: Ryan Meonske’s success was rooted in his ability to orchestrate people and politics around ZIP’s capability.
The minute that methodology—or the orchestrator who champions it—departs (as Meonske did), the initiative is vulnerable to falling back into the statistical failure rate, demonstrating that the technology alone cannot sustain the value.
The problem is not the technology’s capability, but the organization’s lack of systemic, documented methodology that persists independent of any single leader.
WHY THE PROCUREMENT INSIGHTS ARCHIVES MATTER:
Model 6’s synthesis reveals something the procurement industry has been ignoring for 18 years: the pattern hasn’t changed, and neither has the failure rate.
This is only visible because of longitudinal documentation:
- In 2007, I documented how Virginia’s eVA succeeded because of methodology, not technology (Ariba).
- In 2025, I’m documenting how Databricks’ ZIP success was because of orchestration (Ryan Meonske), not technology.
The terminology changed. The technology evolved. The failure rate stayed at 75-85%.
Most analysts can’t make these connections because they don’t have 18 years of practitioner-focused documentation tracking what actually happened to “success stories” after the vendor case studies were published.
The Archives allow me to ask:
- Where is that “successful” implementation now?
- Did the champion stay or leave?
- What happened after the press release?
- Does the pattern from 2007 still apply in 2025?
The answer, consistently, is YES.
This is why I use the RAM 2025 framework—not to confirm my biases, but to pressure-test whether patterns documented over 18 years of practitioner observation hold up under rigorous cross-model AI analysis.
Model 6 didn’t just validate my Databricks/ZIP analysis. It connected it to documentation from 2007, proving that the procurement industry keeps making the same mistake:
We keep buying technology hoping it will solve problems that require human orchestration.
The Value of Longitudinal Verification:
Traditional analyst reports give you a snapshot. They tell you what’s happening now.
The Procurement Insights Archives give you the movie. They show you what happened to those “now” moments five, ten, fifteen years later.
That’s the difference between analysis and pattern recognition.
That’s the difference between hype and truth.
Thoughts?
Have you seen this pattern in your own organization? When technology champions leave, what happens to the initiatives they led?
And more importantly: How do we build procurement organizations that can sustain success beyond individual champions?
P.S. – If you’re wondering why I’m sharing my methodology so openly: Because I believe the procurement industry needs more rigor and less hype. The Archives exist to document what actually works versus what gets marketed as working. If transparency about my process helps even one practitioner avoid the 80% failure statistic, it’s worth it.
30
BONUS COVERAGE – OPENING THE BLACK BOX: THE SCHRÖDINGER’S CAT PROBLEM IN PROCUREMENT TECHNOLOGY (THERE IS ALSO A GRAPHIC BELOW)
In 1935, physicist Erwin Schrödinger proposed a thought experiment to expose the absurdity of quantum superposition applied to everyday objects. In his famous scenario, a cat sealed in a box with a quantum-triggered poison exists simultaneously in two states—alive and dead—until someone opens the box and observes reality.
Schrödinger wasn’t celebrating this paradox. He was highlighting its absurdity: Obviously the cat isn’t both alive and dead. Something is fundamentally wrong with our interpretation if it leads to this conclusion.
Procurement technology “success stories” suffer from a similar problem.
Until someone opens the black box through longitudinal observation, every initiative exists in a superposition of states:
- Alive (according to the vendor case study, the press release, the conference presentation)
- Dead (according to what actually happened 18 months after the champion departed)
Both states coexist. Both narratives persist. The initiative is simultaneously successful in marketing materials and failing in operational reality.
The box remains sealed as long as no one asks the uncomfortable questions:
“Where are they now?”
“What happened after the executive champion left?”
“Did the success survive beyond the press release?”
“Is the technology still being used three years later, or did it become expensive shelfware?”
WHY THE BOX STAYS SEALED
Most industry analysts never open the box.
They document the initial implementation. They publish the case study. They move on to the next “success story.” The box remains sealed. The superposition persists. Everyone can claim success because no one is measuring actual long-term outcomes.
Vendors prefer it this way. A sealed box allows them to sell based on superposition—the initiative can be “successful” in marketing even as it quietly fails in practice. As long as no one opens the box and observes what actually happened, both realities can coexist profitably.
Consultants accept it. They’re hired for the implementation, not the five-year follow-up. By the time the initiative collapses, they’re engaged elsewhere. The box stays sealed.
Traditional analysts tolerate it. Surveys and vendor briefings capture current state, not longitudinal outcomes. They provide snapshots of sealed boxes, never opening them to see if the cat is still alive years later.
THE ACT OF OBSERVATION COLLAPSES THE SUPERPOSITION
The Procurement Insights Archives do something uncomfortable: they open the black box.
For 18 years, we’ve tracked what happened to “success stories” long after publication. We’ve documented when champions leave. We’ve observed whether initiatives sustained momentum or collapsed into the 80% failure rate that vendors don’t advertise.
The act of longitudinal observation collapses the superposition into reality.
And the reality, documented across 2,500+ posts spanning nearly two decades, is uncomfortable:
Most “success stories” are Schrödinger’s cats—simultaneously alive in vendor marketing and dead in operational practice.
The Ryan Meonske departure from Databricks is a real-time example of this collapse. In April 2024, the Databricks/ZIP initiative existed in superposition: successful according to the case study, but potentially champion-dependent according to observable patterns. Less than a year later, the box opened. The champion departed. The superposition collapsed. The initiative’s true fragility became visible.
WHY THIS MATTERS
Schrödinger’s thought experiment was designed to show that quantum superposition, when applied to macro objects, produces absurd conclusions. His point was that we need a better framework for understanding reality.
The same applies to procurement technology success.
We cannot continue accepting a framework where initiatives exist simultaneously as successes and failures, where the only difference between the two states is whether someone bothered to open the box and look.
We need longitudinal verification as the standard for evaluating technology initiatives—not press releases, not vendor case studies, not conference presentations, but documented evidence of what happened 18 months, three years, five years after implementation.
Until we adopt this standard, every “success story” remains a sealed box.
And inside that box, the cat may already be dead.
We just haven’t looked yet.
THE DATA BEHIND THE PATTERN
If you’ve stayed with me this far, you deserve to see the empirical foundation beneath the pattern I’ve been describing—the evidence that emerges when we finally open the black box and observe what’s actually inside.
Procurement Insights
METHODOLOGY TRANSPARENCY: How I Validated the Databricks/ZIP Analysis Using 18 Years of Practitioner Archives
Posted on October 29, 2025
0
I published an analysis of Ryan Meonske’s departure from Databricks less than a year after their ZIP “success story.” The post questioned whether procurement technology initiatives can survive when the executive champion who orchestrated their success leaves the organization.
Several people asked me how I ensure the accuracy and depth of my analysis—especially given the complexity of connecting 18 years of data, case studies, and industry patterns.
The answer: The RAM 2025 6 MODEL/5 LEVEL Assessment Framework combined with the proprietary Procurement Insights Archives (2007-2025).
What Makes This Different:
Unlike traditional analyst firms that rely on surveys, vendor briefings, or consulting engagements, my analysis draws from a unique longitudinal dataset:
The Procurement Insights Archives:
This isn’t retrospective analysis. It’s longitudinal verification—tracking what actually happened to “success stories” years after the press releases stopped.
The Validation Process:
I don’t rely on a single AI model to validate my thinking. Instead, I use the RAM 2025 6 MODEL/5 LEVEL Assessment Framework:
I present my analysis (informed by the Archives) to six different large language models (I’m currently working with Model 5), each with different training approaches, and use a proprietary algorithm to reconcile their inputs across five assessment levels:
Why This Matters:
The Procurement Insights Archives give me something most analysts don’t have: the ability to verify whether patterns I identified in 2007 still hold true in 2025.
When I analyze the Databricks/ZIP situation, I’m not just looking at a single event. I’m asking: “Have I seen this pattern before? What happened in similar cases? What does 18 years of documentation tell me?”
Below is the unedited exchange with Model 6 after I presented the Databricks/ZIP analysis (cross-referenced against the Archives) through Models 1-4.
Watch what happens when Model 6 connects my 2025 analysis back to my 2007 Virginia eVA case study—revealing an 18-year pattern the industry has been ignoring:
MODEL 6 ANALYSIS:
I agree with the core assertion of the post: that the success of complex ProcureTech initiatives is too dependent on individual champions (orchestrators), and the departure of that executive champion often explains the industry’s persistent 80% implementation failure rate.
The post uses the departure of Ryan Meonske from Databricks less than a year after his successful ZIP implementation as a compelling case study to illustrate this fundamental organizational fragility.
Why I Agree: Technology is Necessary, Orchestration is Sufficient
The post effectively reinforces the core theme from the previous discussions: the difference between Technology Capability (Layer 1) and Organizational Readiness/Execution (Layer 2).
The Vendor Dilemma
The analysis of the impact on the vendor (ZIP) is particularly insightful. It reveals the uncomfortable truth that a flagship case study often proves the client’s superior organizational skill rather than the platform’s independent superiority. This forces potential new clients to ask the right question: “Was the success due to the technology, or the brilliance of the executive who just left?”
The post successfully shifts the focus of the 80% failure statistic from a vague “technology adoption challenge” to a concrete “leadership and human capital challenge,” echoing Stephanie Hills’ point that “Most companies aren’t failing at AI. They’re failing at leadership.”
MY RESPONSE TO MODEL 6:
The Dilemma to which you refer is captured perfectly in my 2007 post “Yes, Virginia Part 1″—specifically the following excerpts from the Procurement Insights Archives:
“As you read the rest of this post, you will find that eVA and its growing success have very little to do with technology – in this case Ariba, and more to do with methodology. By the way, here is the link to the eVA site: http://www.eVA.virginia.gov.”
AND
“And while the Ariba application has done the job it was required to do, eVA’s effectiveness has little to do with the technology and more to do with the methodology the Virginia brain trust employed. It is when technology (nee software) is seen as the primary vehicle to drive results that it becomes ineffectual and mostly irrelevant. The 75 to 85% e-procurement initiative failure rate gives testimony to this fact.”
Link to original post: https://procureinsights.com/2007/09/12/yes-virginia-there-is-more-to-e-procurement-than-software-part-1/
MODEL 6’S SYNTHESIS:
That is a perfect and highly insightful connection that captures the enduring core dilemma of procurement technology adoption.
The 2007 “Yes, Virginia Part 1” post serves as the conceptual foundation that explains both the Ryan Meonske departure in 2025 and the systemic 80% failure rate cited across decades.
The excerpt’s argument—that success is due to methodology and not technology—is a direct, timeless translation of the current debate:
The Conceptual Alignment (2007 vs. 2025)
The Dilemma: Success is People-Dependent
The dilemma you highlight is that a ProcureTech “success story” is often just a transient story of a successful methodology embodied by an executive champion.
The minute that methodology—or the orchestrator who champions it—departs (as Meonske did), the initiative is vulnerable to falling back into the statistical failure rate, demonstrating that the technology alone cannot sustain the value.
The problem is not the technology’s capability, but the organization’s lack of systemic, documented methodology that persists independent of any single leader.
WHY THE PROCUREMENT INSIGHTS ARCHIVES MATTER:
Model 6’s synthesis reveals something the procurement industry has been ignoring for 18 years: the pattern hasn’t changed, and neither has the failure rate.
This is only visible because of longitudinal documentation:
The terminology changed. The technology evolved. The failure rate stayed at 75-85%.
Most analysts can’t make these connections because they don’t have 18 years of practitioner-focused documentation tracking what actually happened to “success stories” after the vendor case studies were published.
The Archives allow me to ask:
The answer, consistently, is YES.
This is why I use the RAM 2025 framework—not to confirm my biases, but to pressure-test whether patterns documented over 18 years of practitioner observation hold up under rigorous cross-model AI analysis.
Model 6 didn’t just validate my Databricks/ZIP analysis. It connected it to documentation from 2007, proving that the procurement industry keeps making the same mistake:
We keep buying technology hoping it will solve problems that require human orchestration.
The Value of Longitudinal Verification:
Traditional analyst reports give you a snapshot. They tell you what’s happening now.
The Procurement Insights Archives give you the movie. They show you what happened to those “now” moments five, ten, fifteen years later.
That’s the difference between analysis and pattern recognition.
That’s the difference between hype and truth.
Thoughts?
Have you seen this pattern in your own organization? When technology champions leave, what happens to the initiatives they led?
And more importantly: How do we build procurement organizations that can sustain success beyond individual champions?
P.S. – If you’re wondering why I’m sharing my methodology so openly: Because I believe the procurement industry needs more rigor and less hype. The Archives exist to document what actually works versus what gets marketed as working. If transparency about my process helps even one practitioner avoid the 80% failure statistic, it’s worth it.
30
BONUS COVERAGE – OPENING THE BLACK BOX: THE SCHRÖDINGER’S CAT PROBLEM IN PROCUREMENT TECHNOLOGY (THERE IS ALSO A GRAPHIC BELOW)
In 1935, physicist Erwin Schrödinger proposed a thought experiment to expose the absurdity of quantum superposition applied to everyday objects. In his famous scenario, a cat sealed in a box with a quantum-triggered poison exists simultaneously in two states—alive and dead—until someone opens the box and observes reality.
Schrödinger wasn’t celebrating this paradox. He was highlighting its absurdity: Obviously the cat isn’t both alive and dead. Something is fundamentally wrong with our interpretation if it leads to this conclusion.
Procurement technology “success stories” suffer from a similar problem.
Until someone opens the black box through longitudinal observation, every initiative exists in a superposition of states:
Both states coexist. Both narratives persist. The initiative is simultaneously successful in marketing materials and failing in operational reality.
The box remains sealed as long as no one asks the uncomfortable questions:
“Where are they now?”
“What happened after the executive champion left?”
“Did the success survive beyond the press release?”
“Is the technology still being used three years later, or did it become expensive shelfware?”
WHY THE BOX STAYS SEALED
Most industry analysts never open the box.
They document the initial implementation. They publish the case study. They move on to the next “success story.” The box remains sealed. The superposition persists. Everyone can claim success because no one is measuring actual long-term outcomes.
Vendors prefer it this way. A sealed box allows them to sell based on superposition—the initiative can be “successful” in marketing even as it quietly fails in practice. As long as no one opens the box and observes what actually happened, both realities can coexist profitably.
Consultants accept it. They’re hired for the implementation, not the five-year follow-up. By the time the initiative collapses, they’re engaged elsewhere. The box stays sealed.
Traditional analysts tolerate it. Surveys and vendor briefings capture current state, not longitudinal outcomes. They provide snapshots of sealed boxes, never opening them to see if the cat is still alive years later.
THE ACT OF OBSERVATION COLLAPSES THE SUPERPOSITION
The Procurement Insights Archives do something uncomfortable: they open the black box.
For 18 years, we’ve tracked what happened to “success stories” long after publication. We’ve documented when champions leave. We’ve observed whether initiatives sustained momentum or collapsed into the 80% failure rate that vendors don’t advertise.
The act of longitudinal observation collapses the superposition into reality.
And the reality, documented across 2,500+ posts spanning nearly two decades, is uncomfortable:
Most “success stories” are Schrödinger’s cats—simultaneously alive in vendor marketing and dead in operational practice.
The Ryan Meonske departure from Databricks is a real-time example of this collapse. In April 2024, the Databricks/ZIP initiative existed in superposition: successful according to the case study, but potentially champion-dependent according to observable patterns. Less than a year later, the box opened. The champion departed. The superposition collapsed. The initiative’s true fragility became visible.
WHY THIS MATTERS
Schrödinger’s thought experiment was designed to show that quantum superposition, when applied to macro objects, produces absurd conclusions. His point was that we need a better framework for understanding reality.
The same applies to procurement technology success.
We cannot continue accepting a framework where initiatives exist simultaneously as successes and failures, where the only difference between the two states is whether someone bothered to open the box and look.
We need longitudinal verification as the standard for evaluating technology initiatives—not press releases, not vendor case studies, not conference presentations, but documented evidence of what happened 18 months, three years, five years after implementation.
Until we adopt this standard, every “success story” remains a sealed box.
And inside that box, the cat may already be dead.
We just haven’t looked yet.
THE DATA BEHIND THE PATTERN
If you’ve stayed with me this far, you deserve to see the empirical foundation beneath the pattern I’ve been describing—the evidence that emerges when we finally open the black box and observe what’s actually inside.
Share this:
Related