Let’s start today’s post with the following image, which you should focus on for at least 30 seconds—I want you to really think about what you are seeing (and reading).
Are the frameworks the problem? No, it is the “misplaced” use of the frameworks.
Now, let’s see what the RAM 2025 6 MODEL/LEVEL 2 Assessment has to say about the above image and corresponding data.
MODEL 1
McKinsey is introducing the new framework because their clients aren’t getting lift from “strategy + tech” alone. The repeated “design → mobilize → execute/future-fit operating model” posts are a public admission of execution fragility—i.e., Layer-2 behavioral readiness is the choke point. Framing it as “future-fit operating models” lets them stay in their prescriptive comfort zone (what to do) while acknowledging the missing piece (whether you can do it).
Net effect for Hansen Fit Score (HFS): it validates your thesis in front of the mainstream buyer. If McKinsey says execution readiness is decisive, the market becomes primed for a measurement layer—and HFS is exactly that: a quantified, practitioner-grade fit assessment that predicts survivability and prevents the Evolution Trap. The competitive risks: (1) co-option—McKinsey can rebrand “fit” language without delivering true diagnostics, muddying the term; (2) dilution—“fit” becomes a buzzword checklist instead of a score tied to outcomes; (3) channel power—they can bundle their version of “fit” into large programs, crowding out HFS unless you differentiate clearly as the independent, go/no-go measurement, not another framework. Strategy to counter: own “FIT = measured, predictive readiness,” publish the 23 characteristics openly enough to anchor the standard, and position HFS as the prerequisite that even McKinsey’s blocks must pass before deployment.
MODEL 2
Based on the historical data from the Procurement Insights article—spanning 1999 to 2025, with over 67 strategic frameworks introduced by top consulting firms amid flat 70-71% transformation failure rates and $300B+ in annual consulting spend—there is no empirical reason to expect McKinsey’s latest 12 Building Blocks framework to perform differently. Like prior frameworks, it operates at a prescriptive level (outlining what to do across Design, Mobilize, and Execute phases) without incorporating a foundational “Phase 0” assessment of organizational FIT, such as behavioral readiness, incentive alignment, or adaptive capacity, which the article identifies as the root cause of persistent failures. This omission means it risks the same pitfalls: assuming capabilities that often don’t exist, leading to execution gaps in volatile contexts like dynamic markets or AI integrations.
The actual calculable odds of success for transformations using this framework align with the unchanged industry baseline, as recent 2024-2025 statistics show no downward trend in failure rates despite ongoing framework proliferation. Averaging these reported failure rates (65%, 70%, 70%, 70%, 70%, 70%, 84%) yields a 71.1% failure probability, translating to a 28.9% success probability—or odds of about 1 in 3.5 (success to failure). If integrated with a FIT-like assessment (as in Hansen Models since 1998), the article suggests predictive accuracy could rise to 75-85%, but without it, the framework’s odds remain anchored to historical norms.
MODEL 3
The historical evidence and data from Procurement Insights make it clear: even with solid frameworks, the odds of success remain poor—unless those frameworks are introduced after measuring and addressing organizational readiness. Since 1999, despite 67+ frameworks released by leading consulting firms and more than $300B in annual spend, transformation failure rates have stayed flat at 70–71%.
Frameworks are not to blame for being inherently flawed—instead, the issue is timing and sequence. When traditional frameworks are deployed without a preceding, rigorous readiness assessment (such as the Hansen Fit Score), they inevitably assume an organizational capability that is often not present. This results in well-meaning efforts being “driven on the wrong side of the road”: the framework is sound in theory, but the execution environment is fundamentally unready, creating high failure risk.
Odds of Success for McKinsey’s Latest Framework (Without Behavioral Readiness Assessment):
- Based on industry-wide tracked data for 1999–2025, the failure rate for such transformations remains at about 70–71%.
- This means the odds of success for McKinsey’s 12 building blocks, if used traditionally and not paired with a fit or readiness assessment, are only about 29–30%.
- However, organizations that do incorporate a rigorous, quantifiable readiness assessment (like the Hansen Fit Score, which has shown 75–85% predictive accuracy for successful outcomes) can expect their odds of success to more than double.
Conclusion:
Unless McKinsey’s framework is consciously coupled with a fit assessment before deployment, history and data predict it will struggle to move the needle on failure rates. The strength of the framework isn’t enough—the sequence and organizational readiness are what determine real-world results. The “odds” remain statistically stacked against transformation success unless the readiness gap is closed first.
MODEL 4 (OUTLIER)
In summary, the odds of success for the latest McKinsey “12 Building Blocks” framework are calculable based on historical patterns and readiness principles. The framework itself is not the differentiator—the sequence of deployment is. Organizations that assess and build readiness before deploying the framework can achieve dramatically higher success rates (up to 97%), but those that do not are subject to the same low odds (12-30%) observed over decades. Therefore, unless there is a fundamental change in how organizations approach timing and readiness, there is little reason to expect this latest framework to deliver markedly different results.
MODEL 5
Despite 67+ frameworks being published, the failure rate has remained constant at 70-71% – proving that more frameworks don’t solve the problem.
This is the statistical smoking gun of an clear pattern is undeniable:
- 1999: ~12 frameworks, 70% failure rate
- 2025: 67+ frameworks, 71% failure rate
- Zero improvement despite 5.5X more frameworks
Translation: The problem isn’t the quality of frameworks (WHAT to do). The problem is the missing FIT assessment (IF you CAN do it).
MODEL 6
The belief that “this time, this framework will work” is a false belief because it falls into the Consulting Paradox: transformation failure is not a flaw in the strategy (the framework), but a deep, persistent gap in organizational and behavioral readiness.
The provided graphic and analysis confirm this reality:
- Since 1999, top firms have published over 67 strategic frameworks.
- Despite this massive investment (over $300 billion annually in consulting spend), the transformation failure rate remains stubbornly flat at 70-71%.
The article argues that McKinsey’s new “12 Building Blocks” framework, like its predecessors, will not likely reverse this trend because it addresses “what to do” (Layer 1 strategy) without adequately measuring “if you can do it” (Layer 2 capability).
The Core Reason for Failure: Behavioral Misalignment
The Consulting Paradox persists because strategic frameworks assume organizational capability that often doesn’t exist. The failure is rarely due to the technology or the framework itself. The primary obstacles are rooted in the human element:
- Lack of Execution Readiness: Organizations often treat transformation as a technology upgrade or an IT project. They allocate 80–90% of the budget to technology, neglecting essential factors like organizational change management and process optimization.
- Automating Flaws: Companies frequently digitize existing inefficiencies rather than redesigning processes. Automating a flawed workflow—like the “AI on Broken Workflows” failure pattern—only scales the inefficiency and amplifies chaos.
- Leadership and Alignment: Success requires visible, engaged leadership that aligns stakeholders and acts as a consistent champion. When leadership is disengaged or misaligned, employees revert to old behaviors, resistance emerges, and the initiative stalls.
The Missing Layer: FIT Assessment
The missing piece is a diagnostic layer to assess Behavioral Readiness before strategy deployment. McKinsey’s framework addresses the “Mobilize” phase, which includes governance and resource allocation, but it lacks the quantitative tool to determine if the organization has the FIT to execute the strategy.
The Hansen Fit Score (HFS) methodology provides this missing layer by offering 75-85% predictive accuracy for implementation success, focusing on the causal factors that the consulting paradox ignores: Incentive Alignment, Process Maturity, and Governance.
Let’s have another look at the graph:
TODAY’S TAKEAWAY
- Like the technology, the problem isn’t with the framework, but is use placement.
- HFS is the prerequisite that even McKinsey’s blocks must pass before deployment.
30
Procurement Insights
McKinsey’s New Framework Is Not The Answer Nor Is It The Problem
Posted on November 2, 2025
0
Let’s start today’s post with the following image, which you should focus on for at least 30 seconds—I want you to really think about what you are seeing (and reading).
Are the frameworks the problem? No, it is the “misplaced” use of the frameworks.
Now, let’s see what the RAM 2025 6 MODEL/LEVEL 2 Assessment has to say about the above image and corresponding data.
MODEL 1
McKinsey is introducing the new framework because their clients aren’t getting lift from “strategy + tech” alone. The repeated “design → mobilize → execute/future-fit operating model” posts are a public admission of execution fragility—i.e., Layer-2 behavioral readiness is the choke point. Framing it as “future-fit operating models” lets them stay in their prescriptive comfort zone (what to do) while acknowledging the missing piece (whether you can do it).
Net effect for Hansen Fit Score (HFS): it validates your thesis in front of the mainstream buyer. If McKinsey says execution readiness is decisive, the market becomes primed for a measurement layer—and HFS is exactly that: a quantified, practitioner-grade fit assessment that predicts survivability and prevents the Evolution Trap. The competitive risks: (1) co-option—McKinsey can rebrand “fit” language without delivering true diagnostics, muddying the term; (2) dilution—“fit” becomes a buzzword checklist instead of a score tied to outcomes; (3) channel power—they can bundle their version of “fit” into large programs, crowding out HFS unless you differentiate clearly as the independent, go/no-go measurement, not another framework. Strategy to counter: own “FIT = measured, predictive readiness,” publish the 23 characteristics openly enough to anchor the standard, and position HFS as the prerequisite that even McKinsey’s blocks must pass before deployment.
MODEL 2
Based on the historical data from the Procurement Insights article—spanning 1999 to 2025, with over 67 strategic frameworks introduced by top consulting firms amid flat 70-71% transformation failure rates and $300B+ in annual consulting spend—there is no empirical reason to expect McKinsey’s latest 12 Building Blocks framework to perform differently. Like prior frameworks, it operates at a prescriptive level (outlining what to do across Design, Mobilize, and Execute phases) without incorporating a foundational “Phase 0” assessment of organizational FIT, such as behavioral readiness, incentive alignment, or adaptive capacity, which the article identifies as the root cause of persistent failures. This omission means it risks the same pitfalls: assuming capabilities that often don’t exist, leading to execution gaps in volatile contexts like dynamic markets or AI integrations.
The actual calculable odds of success for transformations using this framework align with the unchanged industry baseline, as recent 2024-2025 statistics show no downward trend in failure rates despite ongoing framework proliferation. Averaging these reported failure rates (65%, 70%, 70%, 70%, 70%, 70%, 84%) yields a 71.1% failure probability, translating to a 28.9% success probability—or odds of about 1 in 3.5 (success to failure). If integrated with a FIT-like assessment (as in Hansen Models since 1998), the article suggests predictive accuracy could rise to 75-85%, but without it, the framework’s odds remain anchored to historical norms.
MODEL 3
The historical evidence and data from Procurement Insights make it clear: even with solid frameworks, the odds of success remain poor—unless those frameworks are introduced after measuring and addressing organizational readiness. Since 1999, despite 67+ frameworks released by leading consulting firms and more than $300B in annual spend, transformation failure rates have stayed flat at 70–71%.
Frameworks are not to blame for being inherently flawed—instead, the issue is timing and sequence. When traditional frameworks are deployed without a preceding, rigorous readiness assessment (such as the Hansen Fit Score), they inevitably assume an organizational capability that is often not present. This results in well-meaning efforts being “driven on the wrong side of the road”: the framework is sound in theory, but the execution environment is fundamentally unready, creating high failure risk.
Odds of Success for McKinsey’s Latest Framework (Without Behavioral Readiness Assessment):
Conclusion:
Unless McKinsey’s framework is consciously coupled with a fit assessment before deployment, history and data predict it will struggle to move the needle on failure rates. The strength of the framework isn’t enough—the sequence and organizational readiness are what determine real-world results. The “odds” remain statistically stacked against transformation success unless the readiness gap is closed first.
MODEL 4 (OUTLIER)
In summary, the odds of success for the latest McKinsey “12 Building Blocks” framework are calculable based on historical patterns and readiness principles. The framework itself is not the differentiator—the sequence of deployment is. Organizations that assess and build readiness before deploying the framework can achieve dramatically higher success rates (up to 97%), but those that do not are subject to the same low odds (12-30%) observed over decades. Therefore, unless there is a fundamental change in how organizations approach timing and readiness, there is little reason to expect this latest framework to deliver markedly different results.
MODEL 5
Despite 67+ frameworks being published, the failure rate has remained constant at 70-71% – proving that more frameworks don’t solve the problem.
This is the statistical smoking gun of an clear pattern is undeniable:
Translation: The problem isn’t the quality of frameworks (WHAT to do). The problem is the missing FIT assessment (IF you CAN do it).
MODEL 6
The belief that “this time, this framework will work” is a false belief because it falls into the Consulting Paradox: transformation failure is not a flaw in the strategy (the framework), but a deep, persistent gap in organizational and behavioral readiness.
The provided graphic and analysis confirm this reality:
The article argues that McKinsey’s new “12 Building Blocks” framework, like its predecessors, will not likely reverse this trend because it addresses “what to do” (Layer 1 strategy) without adequately measuring “if you can do it” (Layer 2 capability).
The Core Reason for Failure: Behavioral Misalignment
The Consulting Paradox persists because strategic frameworks assume organizational capability that often doesn’t exist. The failure is rarely due to the technology or the framework itself. The primary obstacles are rooted in the human element:
The Missing Layer: FIT Assessment
The missing piece is a diagnostic layer to assess Behavioral Readiness before strategy deployment. McKinsey’s framework addresses the “Mobilize” phase, which includes governance and resource allocation, but it lacks the quantitative tool to determine if the organization has the FIT to execute the strategy.
The Hansen Fit Score (HFS) methodology provides this missing layer by offering 75-85% predictive accuracy for implementation success, focusing on the causal factors that the consulting paradox ignores: Incentive Alignment, Process Maturity, and Governance.
Let’s have another look at the graph:
TODAY’S TAKEAWAY
30
Share this:
Related