Introduction: Excellent Framework, Critical Gap
This week, McKinsey & Company published its “12 Building Blocks of Strategy” framework to their 6.7 million followers. It’s an excellent structural framework covering design, mobilization, and execution.
And it’s missing something critical.
After 42 years and 180+ implementations, I’ve watched organizations deploy McKinsey’s frameworks, BCG’s models, and Bain’s tools – all excellent – only to fail catastrophically. Not because the frameworks were wrong, but because no one assessed whether the organization had the FIT to execute them.
McKinsey is finally converging toward the same structural truths the Hansen Models have been pointing to since 1998. But they’re still operating at the prescriptive layer (telling organizations WHAT to do) without addressing the causal layer (assessing IF organizations CAN do it).
That gap costs billions in transformation failures every year.
The Consulting Paradox: A Data Story
Here’s what the data shows:
Since 1999:
- Top consulting firms published 67+ strategic frameworks
- Transformation failure rates stayed flat at 70-71%
- Annual consulting spend reached $300B+
More frameworks ≠ better outcomes.
Why? Because frameworks assume organizational capability that often doesn’t exist.
What McKinsey Got Right (And What They’re Missing)
McKinsey’s Three Phases:
DESIGN: Align on challenge, assess business, explore big moves, commit to strategy
MOBILIZE: Empower and govern, translate to initiatives, reallocate resources, embed in budgets
EXECUTE: Force momentum, drive performance, test and adapt, launch next S-curve
These are the right activities. McKinsey has identified what organizations should do.
But here’s what’s missing: Before you can execute these 12 blocks, you need to answer a more fundamental question:
“Does this organization have the capability to execute adaptive, context-appropriate strategies?”
That’s not a question about strategy. It’s a question about organizational FIT.
The Real-World Cost of Missing FIT Assessment
Let me give you a concrete example (details anonymized):
A large US retailer deployed a perfect procurement strategy framework. Strategy-culture alignment was excellent. Leadership was committed. The framework was sound.
Within two years, they were paying 23% premiums over the market.
What went wrong?
They applied a “historic flatline” strategy (volume contracts for stable-price commodities) to “dynamic flux” commodities (products with rapidly declining prices). By centralizing to 100 suppliers with negotiated contracts, they:
- Cut themselves off from market price signals
- Locked in negotiated ceilings while the broader market dropped
- Turned “10% savings” into 23% premiums
The framework was fine. The organizational FIT was missing.
They couldn’t execute commodity-specific strategies because they lacked the characteristics required for adaptive, decentralized procurement in dynamic markets.
Why RAM (1998) Outperforms Modern AI Deployments
Between 1998 and 2005, we deployed RAM (Real-time Acquisition Model) using basic self-learning algorithms—primitive by today’s standards.
It delivered exceptional results that most organizations can’t match today with AI that’s 1000x more sophisticated.
Why?
Because we assessed organizational FIT first.
Think of it this way: Modern AI is like giving organizations a Ferrari (incredible technology, powerful frameworks). But if they don’t know which side of the road to drive on, the more powerful the car, the worse the crash.
RAM was a basic car driven on the right side of the road. Modern AI deployments are often Ferraris driven on the wrong side of the road at high speed.
Technology capability has increased 1000x. Results have gotten worse. Because the FIT assessment is missing.
The Phase McKinsey Doesn’t Include: PHASE 0
Before organizations deploy McKinsey’s 12 building blocks (or any strategic framework), they need:
PHASE 0: ASSESS FIT
This isn’t about motivation, commitment, or leadership buy-in. It’s about measurable organizational characteristics that predict transformation survivability.
After 180+ implementations, we’ve identified 23 characteristics across five dimensions that determine whether organizations can execute strategic frameworks.
These characteristics predict success with 75-85% accuracy.
Some examples of what gets measured:
- Can your processes execute adaptive, context-dependent strategies?
- Do agents trust decentralized governance when appropriate?
- Can systems support real-time resource reallocation?
- Does talent have execution capacity under sustained pressure?
- Can your culture test assumptions and adapt when they’re wrong?
But here’s the key: This isn’t a checklist. It’s an integrated assessment of whether your organization can execute the specific type of transformation you’re attempting.
The same organization might have high FIT for one type of transformation and low FIT for another. Context matters.
The Convergence McKinsey Is Missing
McKinsey’s framework is converging toward what Hansen Models identified in 1998:
✅ Strategy requires mobilization, not just design (we’ve said this since 1998)
✅ Execution capability matters as much as strategic brilliance (agent-based vs. equation-based thinking)
✅ Organizations must adapt based on feedback (dynamic flux vs. historic flatline)
✅ Decentralization and governance must coexist (context-appropriate strategies)
This convergence validates decades of Hansen research.
But McKinsey—and the consulting industry broadly—still operates at the prescriptive layer:
- “Here are the 12 block.”
- “Follow these steps”
- “Execute this framework”
What’s missing is the causal layer:
- “Does your organization have the FIT to execute this?”
- “Which characteristics are missing?”
- “Should you even attempt this transformation, or fix foundational issues first?”
What Organizations Should Do Instead
STOP deploying frameworks without FIT assessment.
START with three questions:
- Can we execute the mobilization phase?
- Do we have the behavioral trust for decentralized governance?
- Can our processes translate strategy into context-specific initiatives?
- Does our data infrastructure support adaptive decision-making?
- Can we sustain the execution phase?
- Do we have capacity for sustained performance under pressure?
- Can our culture support testing assumptions and adapting?
- Can we maintain momentum through difficulty?
- Should we even attempt this transformation?
- Or should we fix foundational FIT issues first?
- What’s the probability of success given current organizational state?
- What would it take to increase that probability?
This is a predictive assessment, not a post-mortem diagnosis.
We’re preventing transformation failures, not explaining them after billions have been spent.
Conclusion: Frameworks Work When FIT Exists
McKinsey’s 12 building blocks are excellent. So are frameworks from BCG, Bain, Deloitte, and others.
The frameworks aren’t the problem.
The problem is deploying them in organizations that lack the FIT to execute them.
After 42 years, 180+ implementations, and 75-85% predictive accuracy, the pattern is clear:
Organizations need FIT assessment BEFORE framework deployment.
Answer the “Can we do it?” question first.
Deploy the “What should we do?” frameworks second.
That’s how you escape the consulting paradox and join the 20-30% of transformations that actually succeed.
Want to Learn More?
For the detailed breakdown of McKinsey’s 12 blocks and corresponding FIT assessment: Comment below or contact: jon@pimedia.com
For the Hansen Fit Score assessment methodology: This framework is available to organizations serious about transformation success. Inquiries: jon@pimedia1.com
Related Reading:
30
Procurement Insights
McKinsey’s 12 Building Blocks: Driving a Good Vehicle on the Wrong Side of the Road
Posted on November 1, 2025
0
Introduction: Excellent Framework, Critical Gap
This week, McKinsey & Company published its “12 Building Blocks of Strategy” framework to their 6.7 million followers. It’s an excellent structural framework covering design, mobilization, and execution.
And it’s missing something critical.
After 42 years and 180+ implementations, I’ve watched organizations deploy McKinsey’s frameworks, BCG’s models, and Bain’s tools – all excellent – only to fail catastrophically. Not because the frameworks were wrong, but because no one assessed whether the organization had the FIT to execute them.
McKinsey is finally converging toward the same structural truths the Hansen Models have been pointing to since 1998. But they’re still operating at the prescriptive layer (telling organizations WHAT to do) without addressing the causal layer (assessing IF organizations CAN do it).
That gap costs billions in transformation failures every year.
The Consulting Paradox: A Data Story
Here’s what the data shows:
Since 1999:
More frameworks ≠ better outcomes.
Why? Because frameworks assume organizational capability that often doesn’t exist.
What McKinsey Got Right (And What They’re Missing)
McKinsey’s Three Phases:
DESIGN: Align on challenge, assess business, explore big moves, commit to strategy
MOBILIZE: Empower and govern, translate to initiatives, reallocate resources, embed in budgets
EXECUTE: Force momentum, drive performance, test and adapt, launch next S-curve
These are the right activities. McKinsey has identified what organizations should do.
But here’s what’s missing: Before you can execute these 12 blocks, you need to answer a more fundamental question:
“Does this organization have the capability to execute adaptive, context-appropriate strategies?”
That’s not a question about strategy. It’s a question about organizational FIT.
The Real-World Cost of Missing FIT Assessment
Let me give you a concrete example (details anonymized):
A large US retailer deployed a perfect procurement strategy framework. Strategy-culture alignment was excellent. Leadership was committed. The framework was sound.
Within two years, they were paying 23% premiums over the market.
What went wrong?
They applied a “historic flatline” strategy (volume contracts for stable-price commodities) to “dynamic flux” commodities (products with rapidly declining prices). By centralizing to 100 suppliers with negotiated contracts, they:
The framework was fine. The organizational FIT was missing.
They couldn’t execute commodity-specific strategies because they lacked the characteristics required for adaptive, decentralized procurement in dynamic markets.
Why RAM (1998) Outperforms Modern AI Deployments
Between 1998 and 2005, we deployed RAM (Real-time Acquisition Model) using basic self-learning algorithms—primitive by today’s standards.
It delivered exceptional results that most organizations can’t match today with AI that’s 1000x more sophisticated.
Why?
Because we assessed organizational FIT first.
Think of it this way: Modern AI is like giving organizations a Ferrari (incredible technology, powerful frameworks). But if they don’t know which side of the road to drive on, the more powerful the car, the worse the crash.
RAM was a basic car driven on the right side of the road. Modern AI deployments are often Ferraris driven on the wrong side of the road at high speed.
Technology capability has increased 1000x. Results have gotten worse. Because the FIT assessment is missing.
The Phase McKinsey Doesn’t Include: PHASE 0
Before organizations deploy McKinsey’s 12 building blocks (or any strategic framework), they need:
PHASE 0: ASSESS FIT
This isn’t about motivation, commitment, or leadership buy-in. It’s about measurable organizational characteristics that predict transformation survivability.
After 180+ implementations, we’ve identified 23 characteristics across five dimensions that determine whether organizations can execute strategic frameworks.
These characteristics predict success with 75-85% accuracy.
Some examples of what gets measured:
But here’s the key: This isn’t a checklist. It’s an integrated assessment of whether your organization can execute the specific type of transformation you’re attempting.
The same organization might have high FIT for one type of transformation and low FIT for another. Context matters.
The Convergence McKinsey Is Missing
McKinsey’s framework is converging toward what Hansen Models identified in 1998:
✅ Strategy requires mobilization, not just design (we’ve said this since 1998)
✅ Execution capability matters as much as strategic brilliance (agent-based vs. equation-based thinking)
✅ Organizations must adapt based on feedback (dynamic flux vs. historic flatline)
✅ Decentralization and governance must coexist (context-appropriate strategies)
This convergence validates decades of Hansen research.
But McKinsey—and the consulting industry broadly—still operates at the prescriptive layer:
What’s missing is the causal layer:
What Organizations Should Do Instead
STOP deploying frameworks without FIT assessment.
START with three questions:
This is a predictive assessment, not a post-mortem diagnosis.
We’re preventing transformation failures, not explaining them after billions have been spent.
Conclusion: Frameworks Work When FIT Exists
McKinsey’s 12 building blocks are excellent. So are frameworks from BCG, Bain, Deloitte, and others.
The frameworks aren’t the problem.
The problem is deploying them in organizations that lack the FIT to execute them.
After 42 years, 180+ implementations, and 75-85% predictive accuracy, the pattern is clear:
Organizations need FIT assessment BEFORE framework deployment.
Answer the “Can we do it?” question first.
Deploy the “What should we do?” frameworks second.
That’s how you escape the consulting paradox and join the 20-30% of transformations that actually succeed.
Want to Learn More?
For the detailed breakdown of McKinsey’s 12 blocks and corresponding FIT assessment: Comment below or contact: jon@pimedia.com
For the Hansen Fit Score assessment methodology: This framework is available to organizations serious about transformation success. Inquiries: jon@pimedia1.com
Related Reading:
30
Share this:
Related