Sometimes when you read something and see an accompanying graphic, you have to shake your head.
I am going to show you two images. The first is from yesterday, November 1st, 2025. The second graphic is from December 2nd, 2024.
Take a few moments to take in what these images are telling you, and then I will provide the synopsis.
IMAGE 1 – NOVEMBER 2025
IMAGE 2 – DECEMBER 2024
QUESTION: If someone sells you a new boat with a hole in it and the boat sinks, whose fault is it when it does? Read the following, and at the end, I will ask you that question again.
THE PROCUREMENT INSIGHTS ARCHIVES
In December 2024, Gartner’s Global Chief of Research basically said to practitioners: ‘Your Failing GenAI Initiative Is Your Fault.’
Let me translate what he was really saying:
‘We hyped AI and pushed you to adopt before assessing readiness. When it predictably failed (70% probability without FIT assessment), we’re blaming YOU for following OUR advice. Now buy more Gartner research to fix the problem we created.’
This is gaslighting on an industrial scale. Why are you applying it wrong? Simple, because you are listening to Gartner, which recognizes that organizational readiness is not verified correctly or confirmed before introducing one of their AI selection and implementation frameworks. In short, Gartner gives AI (and all prior technology) a bad name
And it explains why the consulting industry has resisted Hansen Fit Score for 26 years.” It also explains why consultancies like McKinsey are scrambling to adopt Hansen Fit Score terminology to repackage the same boat-with-a-hole-in-it framework.
I want to pause here for a moment to say that the issue isn’t with the frameworks themselves, as outlined in my last post, McKinsey’s New Framework Is Not The Answer Nor Is It The Problem. The frameworks are solid, but they are being misused—McKinsey’s 12 Building Blocks: Driving a Good Vehicle on the Wrong Side of the Road.
In the archives, I have tracked 180-plus implementations between 1999 and 2025. What do you see in the graphic below? By the way, this is the advantage of covering our industry from a practitioner’s perspective rather than a vendor’s perspective.
The Three Stories:
Story 1: Canadian Treasury Head (2005)
“We followed procedure. The outcome is secondary.”
This is what the consulting industry WANTS: Process compliance over results.
Story 2: Duke Energy (2005)
“We are following best practices, and we have hired the right consultants.”
This is what the consulting industry WANTS: Trust us and don’t risk your career.
Story 3: Gartner (2024)
“Your failing initiative is YOUR fault.”
After 26 years of pushing frameworks without readiness assessment, Gartner has the audacity to blame practitioners for following their advice.
The Pattern:
Since 1999:
- 67+ frameworks published
- $300B+ annual consulting spend
- 70-71% failure rate (unchanged)
- Consulting firms blame: practitioners
The truth:
- Frameworks deployed before assessing readiness
- Failure is predictable (not inevitable)
- Consulting firms profit from the gap they create
- Real culprit: Missing Phase 0 FIT assessment
Why The Hansen Fit Score Has Been Resisted:
- Threatens revenue: Defers engagements until clients are ready
- Breaks procedural shield: Makes outcomes primary, not secondary
- Creates accountability: FIT scores become forensic evidence
- Forces uncomfortable truths: Consulting firms must say “not ready yet”
- Reveals 26 years of malpractice: 70% failure was preventable
That’s why Gartner/McKinsey/BCG have resisted quantified readiness assessment:
It’s not incompetence. It’s the business model.
What about the ProcureTech solution providers?
“Look, I know you are right; everyone knows this is what happens. We all take on too many customers who we know have little chance for success with our solution because they are not ready. But if we don’t bring them on as a client, one of our competitors will, and then we will have to explain why we are turning down business when we don’t hit our quarter numbers.” – Vice President, Sales and Marketing, a major ProcureTech solution provider
The Solution:
Phase 0: Assess Hansen Fit Score BEFORE engaging McKinsey/Gartner/BCG
- FIT Score > 7.5: Proceed with confidence (75-85% success probability)
- FIT Score 6.0-7.5: Build capability first
- FIT Score < 6.0: Don’t proceed yet
When readiness assessment becomes a standard procedure:
- ✅ Practitioners are protected (data-driven go/no-go decision)
- ✅ Organizations succeed (75-85% vs. 28.9%)
- ✅ Consulting firms can’t gaslight (“You ignored the FIT score”)
The outcome becomes primary again.
So, here is the final question. When you look at Gartner’s latest graph and see the widening AI Adoption Gap, how do you plan to bridge it – With or without The Hansen Fit Score?
The decision and the full responsibility for the outcomes are now in your, the practitioner’s, hands, where they belong. How do you plan to bridge it—with data-driven readiness, or continued hope that this time – this framework will be different?
30
Procurement Insights
Is Gartner Blaming Practitioners for Following . . . Gartner’s Advice?
Posted on November 2, 2025
0
Sometimes when you read something and see an accompanying graphic, you have to shake your head.
I am going to show you two images. The first is from yesterday, November 1st, 2025. The second graphic is from December 2nd, 2024.
Take a few moments to take in what these images are telling you, and then I will provide the synopsis.
IMAGE 1 – NOVEMBER 2025
IMAGE 2 – DECEMBER 2024
QUESTION: If someone sells you a new boat with a hole in it and the boat sinks, whose fault is it when it does? Read the following, and at the end, I will ask you that question again.
THE PROCUREMENT INSIGHTS ARCHIVES
In December 2024, Gartner’s Global Chief of Research basically said to practitioners: ‘Your Failing GenAI Initiative Is Your Fault.’
Let me translate what he was really saying:
‘We hyped AI and pushed you to adopt before assessing readiness. When it predictably failed (70% probability without FIT assessment), we’re blaming YOU for following OUR advice. Now buy more Gartner research to fix the problem we created.’
This is gaslighting on an industrial scale. Why are you applying it wrong? Simple, because you are listening to Gartner, which recognizes that organizational readiness is not verified correctly or confirmed before introducing one of their AI selection and implementation frameworks. In short, Gartner gives AI (and all prior technology) a bad name
And it explains why the consulting industry has resisted Hansen Fit Score for 26 years.” It also explains why consultancies like McKinsey are scrambling to adopt Hansen Fit Score terminology to repackage the same boat-with-a-hole-in-it framework.
I want to pause here for a moment to say that the issue isn’t with the frameworks themselves, as outlined in my last post, McKinsey’s New Framework Is Not The Answer Nor Is It The Problem. The frameworks are solid, but they are being misused—McKinsey’s 12 Building Blocks: Driving a Good Vehicle on the Wrong Side of the Road.
In the archives, I have tracked 180-plus implementations between 1999 and 2025. What do you see in the graphic below? By the way, this is the advantage of covering our industry from a practitioner’s perspective rather than a vendor’s perspective.
The Three Stories:
Story 1: Canadian Treasury Head (2005)
This is what the consulting industry WANTS: Process compliance over results.
Story 2: Duke Energy (2005)
“We are following best practices, and we have hired the right consultants.”
This is what the consulting industry WANTS: Trust us and don’t risk your career.
Story 3: Gartner (2024)
After 26 years of pushing frameworks without readiness assessment, Gartner has the audacity to blame practitioners for following their advice.
The Pattern:
Since 1999:
The truth:
Why The Hansen Fit Score Has Been Resisted:
That’s why Gartner/McKinsey/BCG have resisted quantified readiness assessment:
It’s not incompetence. It’s the business model.
What about the ProcureTech solution providers?
“Look, I know you are right; everyone knows this is what happens. We all take on too many customers who we know have little chance for success with our solution because they are not ready. But if we don’t bring them on as a client, one of our competitors will, and then we will have to explain why we are turning down business when we don’t hit our quarter numbers.” – Vice President, Sales and Marketing, a major ProcureTech solution provider
The Solution:
Phase 0: Assess Hansen Fit Score BEFORE engaging McKinsey/Gartner/BCG
When readiness assessment becomes a standard procedure:
The outcome becomes primary again.
So, here is the final question. When you look at Gartner’s latest graph and see the widening AI Adoption Gap, how do you plan to bridge it – With or without The Hansen Fit Score?
The decision and the full responsibility for the outcomes are now in your, the practitioner’s, hands, where they belong. How do you plan to bridge it—with data-driven readiness, or continued hope that this time – this framework will be different?
30
Share this:
Related