Why HFS Assessment is Diagnostic, Not Prescriptive – And Why That Matters for Transformation Success
THE CONSULTANT ARRIVES WITH THE ANSWER
Here’s how most transformation initiatives begin:
A consultant arrives with a framework. They’ve used it successfully at dozens of companies. It’s proven. It’s validated. It works.
Then they apply that framework TO your company.
“Here’s our methodology. Let’s see how your organization fits into it.”
And that’s where 80% of transformations begin their slow march toward failure.
Not because the framework is bad.
But because the approach is backwards.
THE FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE
There are two ways to approach organizational readiness assessment:
APPROACH 1: APPLY FRAMEWORK TO COMPANY (Most Consultants)
Framework-first thinking
Company must adapt to consultant’s model
Prescriptive methodology
One-size-fits-most solution
APPROACH 2: APPLY COMPANY TO FRAMEWORK (HFS Methodology)
Reality-first thinking
Framework reveals where company actually is
Diagnostic methodology
Customized assessment based on actual position
The difference isn’t semantic. It’s fundamental.
One approach imposes solutions. The other reveals reality.
WHY MOST TRANSFORMATIONS FAIL: THE READINESS ASSUMPTION
When consultants apply their framework TO your company, they’re making a critical assumption:
“Your organization is ready to execute our methodology.”
They assume:
Stakeholders are aligned
Decision authority is clear
People have capacity for change
Resources are available for implementation
Incentives support the transformation
But what if those assumptions are wrong?
What if your organization just completed a major transformation last year and your team is exhausted?
What if your VP, HR Director, and GM all define “success” differently?
What if decision-making authority is distributed across functions with no clear owner?
The consultant’s framework doesn’t account for where you ACTUALLY are.
It assumes you’re at the starting line when you might be halfway through a marathon – or just finished one.
THE HFS APPROACH: WHERE DOES YOUR COMPANY FALL ON THE SPECTRUM?
The Hansen Fit Score (HFS) takes a different approach.
Instead of asking “How does our framework apply to your company?”
We ask: “Where does your company fall on the 23-characteristic readiness spectrum?”
Each of the 23 organizational characteristics that determine transformation success operates on a continuum:
Structural Readiness (7 characteristics)
Cultural Readiness (8 characteristics)
Capability Readiness (8 characteristics)
We’re not measuring against an ideal state.
We’re locating where you actually are on each spectrum.
EXAMPLE: CHANGE ABSORPTION CAPACITY
Let’s take one critical characteristic: Change Absorption Capacity
This isn’t binary (ready vs. not ready).
It’s a spectrum:
EXHAUSTED ←―― STRETCHED ―― AVAILABLE ―― ABUNDANT ―→
```
**Where does your organization fall?**
Consider this real scenario:
A procurement director at a shipping company spent the past two years driving major transformation:
- Inventory accuracy: 0% → 80%
- Requisition cycle time: 30+ days → 14 days
- Built procurement policies from scratch
- Formalized supplier onboarding processes
Now a consultant proposes implementing a new procurement system in 6 months.
**Question:** Where does this company fall on the Change Absorption Capacity spectrum?
**Answer:** Probably "STRETCHED" or approaching "EXHAUSTED"
**Implication:** Adding another major change right now = high failure risk
**But if the consultant applies their framework TO the company without assessing this, they miss the critical readiness gap.**
---
### **EXAMPLE: STAKEHOLDER ALIGNMENT INFRASTRUCTURE**
Another critical characteristic: **Stakeholder Alignment Infrastructure**
Again, it's a spectrum:
```
COMPETING ←―― UNCLEAR ―― EMERGING ―― ESTABLISHED ―→
Same shipping company scenario:
The procurement director is “trying to rally the troops” – discussions with VP, HR, and GM about the consultant engagement.
HR wants: Manageable change for staff, training feasibility
GM wants: Cost efficiency, budget control
These aren’t necessarily compatible goals.
Question: Where does this company fall on the Stakeholder Alignment spectrum?
Answer: Probably “UNCLEAR” – they support “improvement” but haven’t aligned on what success means
Implication: Consultant recommendations will expose this misalignment during implementation – causing delays, rework, or failure
But if the consultant assumes alignment exists (because leadership approved the engagement), they miss this critical gap.
THE DIAGNOSTIC PROCESS: 5 STEPS
Here’s how applying company TO framework actually works in practice:
STEP 1: BLANK SLATE LISTENING Enter with no assumptions. Let the organization describe reality in their own words.
STEP 2: SPECTRUM LOCATION Based on what they’re describing, where does the company fall on each of the 23 characteristic spectrums?
STEP 3: GAP IDENTIFICATION Which characteristics are in danger zones (red flags)? Which are in caution zones (yellow flags)? Which are in good zones (green flags)?
STEP 4: PRIORITIZATION Of the red/yellow flags, which 2-3 are most critical to address before implementation begins?
STEP 5: DIPLOMATIC TRANSLATION Give leadership language to articulate where the company falls on critical spectrums – and what it means for transformation success.
THIS IS ASSESSMENT, NOT CONSULTING
Here’s what’s important to understand:
WHAT HFS ASSESSMENT IS: ✅ Diagnostic tool revealing where you are ✅ Locating your position on 23-characteristic spectrum ✅ Identifying which readiness gaps will derail implementation ✅ Giving you language to articulate and address gaps ✅ Phase 0 before transformation begins
WHAT HFS ASSESSMENT IS NOT: ❌ Fixing your problems ❌ Taking on your transformation project ❌ Replacing your consultant ❌ Imposing our methodology on your operations ❌ Long-term engagement requirement
Think of it like a health screening:
The doctor doesn’t cure you during the screening.
The doctor identifies:
Where you fall on health metrics (blood pressure, cholesterol, etc.)
Which metrics are in danger zones
What those danger zones mean for your health
What actions to take
Then you decide:
Do I want ongoing treatment with this doctor?
Do I take the diagnosis and act on it myself?
Do I get a second opinion?
Same with HFS assessment.
We diagnose where your organization falls on the readiness spectrum.
We identify critical gaps.
We give you the language and framework to address them.
Then you decide how to proceed.
WHY THIS APPROACH PREVENTS THE 80% FAILURE RATE
Most transformations fail not because of bad methodology.
They fail because organizations weren’t ready to execute the methodology successfully.
The consultant’s framework was sound.
But the organization was:
Already exhausted from previous changes
Misaligned on definition of success
Unclear on decision authority
Under-resourced for implementation
Operating with competing incentives
These readiness gaps surface during implementation – when it’s too late and expensive to fix them.
HFS assessment surfaces them in Phase 0 – before you invest millions in a transformation that can’t succeed.
THE PRACTITIONER ADVANTAGE
There’s one more critical element to this approach:
As an outside observer, I can see patterns you’re missing because you’re inside the situation.
When you’re embedded in daily operations, fighting fires, managing stakeholders, executing under pressure – you can’t see the forest for the trees.
You sense something is wrong.
You feel the train heading off the rails.
But you can’t articulate what’s off or why.
That’s where diagnostic assessment provides value:
I enter with blank slate curiosity.
I listen for strand patterns – connections, disconnections, what’s missing.
I map those patterns to the 23-characteristic framework.
I translate what I’m seeing into language you can use diplomatically with leadership.
I’m not smarter than you.
I just have the outside observer advantage – and a validated framework to reveal what you’re sensing but can’t name.
FROM 1998 THEORY TO 2025 APPLICATION
This approach isn’t new.
It’s rooted in Strand Commonality Theory – research I conducted in 1998 as part of Government of Canada-funded work on AI algorithms.
The theory identifies:
Connection points (what’s aligned)
Disconnection points (what’s misaligned)
Missing strands (what’s absent)
Applied to organizational readiness 27 years later:
I listen for:
What you’re doing vs. what you want to be doing
Where strand connections and disconnections exist
What patterns you’re missing from inside the situation
I map those patterns to the 23 HFS characteristics.
I locate where your organization falls on each spectrum.
I identify the critical gaps.
I give you diplomatic language to surface them.
This isn’t improvisation.
This is methodology with 27-year intellectual foundation.
THE PRACTICAL QUESTION: WHAT DO YOU DO WITH THIS?
If you’re leading a transformation initiative right now – or about to start one – here’s the practical takeaway:
Before you apply any framework TO your organization, first apply your organization TO a readiness framework.
Ask:
Where do we fall on Change Absorption Capacity? (Have we recovered from the last transformation?)
Where do we fall on Stakeholder Alignment? (Are we all defining success the same way?)
Where do we fall on Decision Authority Clarity? (Who has final say on implementation?)
Where do we fall on Resource Allocation? (Do we have budget, time, and people for this?)
If you’re in danger zones on critical characteristics, you have three options:
Build readiness first (Phase 0 before implementation)
Adapt the transformation (scope to match your actual capacity)
Proceed aware of risks (document gaps, monitor closely, intervene early)
But don’t proceed assuming readiness exists when it doesn’t.
That’s how the 80% failure rate perpetuates.
FINAL THOUGHT: DIAGNOSTIC VS. PRESCRIPTIVE
The next time a consultant arrives with a proven framework, ask them one question:
“Before you apply your methodology to our organization, can you help us understand where we fall on the readiness spectrum? Because if we’re not ready to execute your framework successfully, the framework doesn’t matter.”
That’s the critical difference.
Not framework TO company.
But company TO framework.
Diagnostic first.
Prescriptive second.
Because you can’t successfully implement what you’re not organizationally ready to execute.
ABOUT HANSEN FIT SCORE
The Hansen Fit Score (HFS) assesses organizational readiness across 23 characteristics in five categories. Developed by Jon Hansen and rooted in Strand Commonality Theory (1998 Government of Canada-funded AI research), HFS provides diagnostic assessment before transformation initiatives begin – identifying readiness gaps that cause the 80% transformation failure rate.”
Procurement Insights
The Critical Difference: Applying Your Company TO the Framework (Not the Framework TO Your Company)
Posted on November 5, 2025
0
Why HFS Assessment is Diagnostic, Not Prescriptive – And Why That Matters for Transformation Success
THE CONSULTANT ARRIVES WITH THE ANSWER
Here’s how most transformation initiatives begin:
A consultant arrives with a framework. They’ve used it successfully at dozens of companies. It’s proven. It’s validated. It works.
Then they apply that framework TO your company.
“Here’s our methodology. Let’s see how your organization fits into it.”
And that’s where 80% of transformations begin their slow march toward failure.
Not because the framework is bad.
But because the approach is backwards.
THE FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE
There are two ways to approach organizational readiness assessment:
APPROACH 1: APPLY FRAMEWORK TO COMPANY (Most Consultants)
APPROACH 2: APPLY COMPANY TO FRAMEWORK (HFS Methodology)
The difference isn’t semantic. It’s fundamental.
One approach imposes solutions. The other reveals reality.
WHY MOST TRANSFORMATIONS FAIL: THE READINESS ASSUMPTION
When consultants apply their framework TO your company, they’re making a critical assumption:
“Your organization is ready to execute our methodology.”
They assume:
But what if those assumptions are wrong?
What if your organization just completed a major transformation last year and your team is exhausted?
What if your VP, HR Director, and GM all define “success” differently?
What if decision-making authority is distributed across functions with no clear owner?
The consultant’s framework doesn’t account for where you ACTUALLY are.
It assumes you’re at the starting line when you might be halfway through a marathon – or just finished one.
THE HFS APPROACH: WHERE DOES YOUR COMPANY FALL ON THE SPECTRUM?
The Hansen Fit Score (HFS) takes a different approach.
Instead of asking “How does our framework apply to your company?”
We ask: “Where does your company fall on the 23-characteristic readiness spectrum?”
Each of the 23 organizational characteristics that determine transformation success operates on a continuum:
We’re not measuring against an ideal state.
We’re locating where you actually are on each spectrum.
EXAMPLE: CHANGE ABSORPTION CAPACITY
Let’s take one critical characteristic: Change Absorption Capacity
This isn’t binary (ready vs. not ready).
It’s a spectrum:
Same shipping company scenario:
The procurement director is “trying to rally the troops” – discussions with VP, HR, and GM about the consultant engagement.
But are they all solving for the same thing?
These aren’t necessarily compatible goals.
Question: Where does this company fall on the Stakeholder Alignment spectrum?
Answer: Probably “UNCLEAR” – they support “improvement” but haven’t aligned on what success means
Implication: Consultant recommendations will expose this misalignment during implementation – causing delays, rework, or failure
But if the consultant assumes alignment exists (because leadership approved the engagement), they miss this critical gap.
THE DIAGNOSTIC PROCESS: 5 STEPS
Here’s how applying company TO framework actually works in practice:
STEP 1: BLANK SLATE LISTENING Enter with no assumptions. Let the organization describe reality in their own words.
STEP 2: SPECTRUM LOCATION Based on what they’re describing, where does the company fall on each of the 23 characteristic spectrums?
STEP 3: GAP IDENTIFICATION Which characteristics are in danger zones (red flags)? Which are in caution zones (yellow flags)?
Which are in good zones (green flags)?
STEP 4: PRIORITIZATION Of the red/yellow flags, which 2-3 are most critical to address before implementation begins?
STEP 5: DIPLOMATIC TRANSLATION Give leadership language to articulate where the company falls on critical spectrums – and what it means for transformation success.
THIS IS ASSESSMENT, NOT CONSULTING
Here’s what’s important to understand:
WHAT HFS ASSESSMENT IS: ✅ Diagnostic tool revealing where you are ✅ Locating your position on 23-characteristic spectrum ✅ Identifying which readiness gaps will derail implementation ✅ Giving you language to articulate and address gaps ✅ Phase 0 before transformation begins
WHAT HFS ASSESSMENT IS NOT: ❌ Fixing your problems ❌ Taking on your transformation project ❌ Replacing your consultant ❌ Imposing our methodology on your operations ❌ Long-term engagement requirement
Think of it like a health screening:
The doctor doesn’t cure you during the screening.
The doctor identifies:
Then you decide:
Same with HFS assessment.
We diagnose where your organization falls on the readiness spectrum.
We identify critical gaps.
We give you the language and framework to address them.
Then you decide how to proceed.
WHY THIS APPROACH PREVENTS THE 80% FAILURE RATE
Most transformations fail not because of bad methodology.
They fail because organizations weren’t ready to execute the methodology successfully.
The consultant’s framework was sound.
But the organization was:
These readiness gaps surface during implementation – when it’s too late and expensive to fix them.
HFS assessment surfaces them in Phase 0 – before you invest millions in a transformation that can’t succeed.
THE PRACTITIONER ADVANTAGE
There’s one more critical element to this approach:
As an outside observer, I can see patterns you’re missing because you’re inside the situation.
When you’re embedded in daily operations, fighting fires, managing stakeholders, executing under pressure – you can’t see the forest for the trees.
You sense something is wrong.
You feel the train heading off the rails.
But you can’t articulate what’s off or why.
That’s where diagnostic assessment provides value:
I enter with blank slate curiosity.
I listen for strand patterns – connections, disconnections, what’s missing.
I map those patterns to the 23-characteristic framework.
I translate what I’m seeing into language you can use diplomatically with leadership.
I’m not smarter than you.
I just have the outside observer advantage – and a validated framework to reveal what you’re sensing but can’t name.
FROM 1998 THEORY TO 2025 APPLICATION
This approach isn’t new.
It’s rooted in Strand Commonality Theory – research I conducted in 1998 as part of Government of Canada-funded work on AI algorithms.
The theory identifies:
Applied to organizational readiness 27 years later:
I listen for:
I map those patterns to the 23 HFS characteristics.
I locate where your organization falls on each spectrum.
I identify the critical gaps.
I give you diplomatic language to surface them.
This isn’t improvisation.
This is methodology with 27-year intellectual foundation.
THE PRACTICAL QUESTION: WHAT DO YOU DO WITH THIS?
If you’re leading a transformation initiative right now – or about to start one – here’s the practical takeaway:
Before you apply any framework TO your organization, first apply your organization TO a readiness framework.
Ask:
If you’re in danger zones on critical characteristics, you have three options:
But don’t proceed assuming readiness exists when it doesn’t.
That’s how the 80% failure rate perpetuates.
FINAL THOUGHT: DIAGNOSTIC VS. PRESCRIPTIVE
The next time a consultant arrives with a proven framework, ask them one question:
“Before you apply your methodology to our organization, can you help us understand where we fall on the readiness spectrum? Because if we’re not ready to execute your framework successfully, the framework doesn’t matter.”
That’s the critical difference.
Not framework TO company.
But company TO framework.
Diagnostic first.
Prescriptive second.
Because you can’t successfully implement what you’re not organizationally ready to execute.
ABOUT HANSEN FIT SCORE
The Hansen Fit Score (HFS) assesses organizational readiness across 23 characteristics in five categories. Developed by Jon Hansen and rooted in Strand Commonality Theory (1998 Government of Canada-funded AI research), HFS provides diagnostic assessment before transformation initiatives begin – identifying readiness gaps that cause the 80% transformation failure rate.”
30
Share this:
Related