From Diana Esparza’s 2008 research question to Joselina Peralta’s 2025 visibility challenge—and why the gap still hasn’t closed
Earlier today, I read a post by Joselina Peralta about procurement’s visibility problem—how teams deliver value that no one sees or recognizes. This immediately reminded me of a conversation I had with Diana Esparza in February 2008 about her master’s thesis: “Measuring Confidence in Supply Chain Management System: An empirical approach.”
Back then, Diana was researching whether supply chain confidence could be measured. I documented a study showing that procurement claimed 11.9% savings, while finance booked only 3.2%—a 73% disconnect between key stakeholders.
Seventeen years later, I can’t help but wonder: how has supply chain confidence evolved?
The data suggests it hasn’t improved. In fact, it has deteriorated significantly.
Between 2013 and 2015, the percentage of CPOs who believed their teams lacked the necessary skills to deliver on procurement strategy climbed from 52% to 62%, according to Procurement Academy research. By 2015, nearly two-thirds of procurement leaders had lost confidence in their own teams’ capabilities. (It is worth noting that in subsequent years, this lack of confidence trend persisted. Where are we in 2025?)
Even more concerning: only 3.2% of organizations invested more than 1% of their budgets in talent development. The majority—29.5%—spent less than 1% on training.
Think about that for a moment.
CPOs don’t believe their teams have the skills. And they’re not investing to close the gap.
If internal confidence is this fractured, how can we expect CFOs, CEOs, or boards to have confidence in procurement’s value delivery?
You can’t translate value into board language (Joselina’s point) if your own leadership doesn’t believe in your team’s capability.
You can’t close the 73% stakeholder disconnect (the 2008 data) if internal confidence has eroded from 48% to 38% over three years.
You can’t make procurement “impossible to overlook” (Joselina’s phrase) when two-thirds of CPOs publicly doubt their teams’ readiness.
The visibility problem Joselina describes today and the confidence measurement Diana researched in 2008 are symptoms of the same root cause: behavioral readiness gaps that persist because we’ve never systematically addressed them.
And here’s the most troubling pattern: we don’t invest in closing these gaps. Less than 1% of budgets go to talent development, even as confidence erodes year over year.
What Diana Asked in 2008
Below is an excerpt from Diana’s original inquiry and my response. As you read it, notice how I told her that confidence requires stakeholder alignment and collaborative engagement—but also that “before you can quantify confidence, you have to first understand and quantify the individual and collective objectives of diverse stakeholders.”
That includes your own team’s readiness.
Diana’s Question (February 2008):
The following is an interesting question I received from a Master of Science (M.Sc.) Business Technologies student who is working on her thesis “Measuring Confidence in Supply Chain Management System: An empirical approach.”
Reader Question:
My name is Diana Esparza, M.Sc. Electronic Business Technologies full time student at the University of Ottawa. Currently, I am working on my thesis proposal “Measuring Confidence in Supply Chain Management System: An empirical approach”. Although, Supply chain practitioners concur that confidence is an indispensable element that enables enterprises to maximize customer value and diminish operating costs, no academic research has been conducted. Hence, the purpose of my research is to provide enterprises with a standard methodology that measures the level of confidence within the supply chain management system. I want to develop a model that weight reliability within the supply chain since it can assist companies in gaining or enhancing supply chain operational excellence by building an efficient and cost effective supply chain.
For the purpose of the research, I have defined supply chain confidence as an expectation shared by an enterprise with its internal and external business partners. This expectation is based on a trust and/or control ability to achieve overall supply chain performance.
[Diana’s seven questions follow…]
My Response (February 2008) – Key Excerpt:
How would you define supply chain confidence?
Supply chain confidence is based on the ability to engage and understand the diverse and seemingly disparate objectives of key stakeholders within an enterprise’s practice.
For example, in a recent article titled “Few CFOs view procurement affecting competitiveness,” a study found that of the 11.9% of savings claimed by purchasing, the finance department only booked 3.2%. Besides representing a difference of 73%, this disparity in achieved savings signifies a tremendous disconnect between key stakeholders. Unless this chasm of misunderstanding is bridged, your ability to quantify and define a “collective confidence” will be virtually impossible.
In closing, before you can “quantify” or measure the level of confidence within an organization in terms of its impact on a variety of metrics including influence and outcome, you have to first understand and quantify the individual and collective objectives of the diverse stakeholders both within and external to the enterprise itself.
The most effective way to accomplish this is through a collaborative effort in which an agent-based versus a traditional equation-based model is used.
[Read the complete 2008 Q&A here: https://procureinsights.com/2008/02/28/supply-chain-confidence-a-pi-q-and-a/]
Diana’s Response (February 2008):
Thank you so much
Good Day Jon,
Thank you so much your feedback, it has helped me to gain further insight in the topic as well as clarifying some of my doubts. Your comments and suggestions are so valuable for me. I am hoping that you can give me some assistance in the future.
Sincerely,
Diana Esparza
M.Sc E-Business Technologies
What Happened Next
Diana’s research aimed to prove that confidence relies on six sources: visibility, collaboration, compliance, experience and knowledge, maturity and risk.
I told her that collaboration comes before confidence, not the other way around. That stakeholder alignment must be built systematically through behavioral readiness assessment.
She understood. She valued the insight.
But did the industry act on it?
Five years later, the Procurement Academy documented what happens when we measure confidence but don’t invest in building it:
Source: Procurement Academy, 2013-2015. CPO confidence in team capabilities declined from 48% (2013) to 38% (2015), with only 3.2% of organizations investing more than 1% of budgets in talent development.
Diana asked the right question in 2008: “Can supply chain confidence be measured?”
The industry learned the wrong lesson: We measured it. We documented its decline. We didn’t systematically build it.
Epilogue: 2025
When Diana asked in 2008 whether supply chain confidence could be measured, I told her yes—through systematic assessment of stakeholder alignment and behavioral readiness.
What I’ve learned in the 17 years since is that measurement without systematic investment is just documentation of decline.
The Procurement Academy data shows CPO confidence in their teams dropped from 48% to 38% between 2013-2015, while investment in talent development remained below 1% for most organizations.
Joselina Peralta’s 2025 post about procurement’s visibility problem confirms the pattern persists: value delivered but not recognized, impact created but not translated into board language.
The common thread across all three observations—Diana’s 2008 research, the 2013-2015 confidence decline, and Joselina’s 2025 visibility challenge—is this:
We’ve been measuring, documenting, and discussing the confidence gap for nearly two decades.
We haven’t been systematically closing it.
Closing the gap requires three things most organizations resist:
- Behavioral readiness assessment (not just skills inventory, but stakeholder alignment, governance maturity, communication effectiveness)
- Systematic capacity building (not one-off training, but guided improvement with weekly orchestration)
- Outcome accountability (not activity metrics, but measurable improvement in readiness scores and stakeholder confidence)
In my 2008 response to Diana, I wrote: “In the absence of a ‘true’ collaborative process involving key stakeholders, attributes like visibility, compliance, knowledge and maturity will remain elusive to the collective enterprise.”
Seventeen years later, they remain elusive.
Not because we don’t understand the problem.
But because we’ve never built the systematic infrastructure to solve it.
Diana asked whether confidence could be measured.
Joselina identified why visibility remains elusive.
The question now is: Are we ready to actually close the gap?
Or will we spend another 17 years documenting its persistence?
Jon Hansen
Founder, Hansen Models
Creator, Hansen Fit Score (HFS) Methodology
If you’re a CPO tired of the confidence gap, a CFO frustrated by the procurement/finance disconnect, or a transformation leader seeking systematic readiness assessment, let’s talk about what systematic behavioral capacity building can accomplish.
Read the complete 2008 Q&A: https://procureinsights.com/2008/02/28/supply-chain-confidence-a-pi-q-and-a/
30
BONUS COVERAGE: THE GREAT DECLINE?
Procurement Insights
Supply Chain Confidence: A 17-Year Retrospective (2008-2025)
Posted on November 7, 2025
0
From Diana Esparza’s 2008 research question to Joselina Peralta’s 2025 visibility challenge—and why the gap still hasn’t closed
Earlier today, I read a post by Joselina Peralta about procurement’s visibility problem—how teams deliver value that no one sees or recognizes. This immediately reminded me of a conversation I had with Diana Esparza in February 2008 about her master’s thesis: “Measuring Confidence in Supply Chain Management System: An empirical approach.”
Back then, Diana was researching whether supply chain confidence could be measured. I documented a study showing that procurement claimed 11.9% savings, while finance booked only 3.2%—a 73% disconnect between key stakeholders.
Seventeen years later, I can’t help but wonder: how has supply chain confidence evolved?
The data suggests it hasn’t improved. In fact, it has deteriorated significantly.
Between 2013 and 2015, the percentage of CPOs who believed their teams lacked the necessary skills to deliver on procurement strategy climbed from 52% to 62%, according to Procurement Academy research. By 2015, nearly two-thirds of procurement leaders had lost confidence in their own teams’ capabilities. (It is worth noting that in subsequent years, this lack of confidence trend persisted. Where are we in 2025?)
Even more concerning: only 3.2% of organizations invested more than 1% of their budgets in talent development. The majority—29.5%—spent less than 1% on training.
Think about that for a moment.
CPOs don’t believe their teams have the skills. And they’re not investing to close the gap.
If internal confidence is this fractured, how can we expect CFOs, CEOs, or boards to have confidence in procurement’s value delivery?
You can’t translate value into board language (Joselina’s point) if your own leadership doesn’t believe in your team’s capability.
You can’t close the 73% stakeholder disconnect (the 2008 data) if internal confidence has eroded from 48% to 38% over three years.
You can’t make procurement “impossible to overlook” (Joselina’s phrase) when two-thirds of CPOs publicly doubt their teams’ readiness.
The visibility problem Joselina describes today and the confidence measurement Diana researched in 2008 are symptoms of the same root cause: behavioral readiness gaps that persist because we’ve never systematically addressed them.
And here’s the most troubling pattern: we don’t invest in closing these gaps. Less than 1% of budgets go to talent development, even as confidence erodes year over year.
What Diana Asked in 2008
Below is an excerpt from Diana’s original inquiry and my response. As you read it, notice how I told her that confidence requires stakeholder alignment and collaborative engagement—but also that “before you can quantify confidence, you have to first understand and quantify the individual and collective objectives of diverse stakeholders.”
That includes your own team’s readiness.
Diana’s Question (February 2008):
The following is an interesting question I received from a Master of Science (M.Sc.) Business Technologies student who is working on her thesis “Measuring Confidence in Supply Chain Management System: An empirical approach.”
Reader Question:
My name is Diana Esparza, M.Sc. Electronic Business Technologies full time student at the University of Ottawa. Currently, I am working on my thesis proposal “Measuring Confidence in Supply Chain Management System: An empirical approach”. Although, Supply chain practitioners concur that confidence is an indispensable element that enables enterprises to maximize customer value and diminish operating costs, no academic research has been conducted. Hence, the purpose of my research is to provide enterprises with a standard methodology that measures the level of confidence within the supply chain management system. I want to develop a model that weight reliability within the supply chain since it can assist companies in gaining or enhancing supply chain operational excellence by building an efficient and cost effective supply chain.
For the purpose of the research, I have defined supply chain confidence as an expectation shared by an enterprise with its internal and external business partners. This expectation is based on a trust and/or control ability to achieve overall supply chain performance.
[Diana’s seven questions follow…]
My Response (February 2008) – Key Excerpt:
How would you define supply chain confidence?
Supply chain confidence is based on the ability to engage and understand the diverse and seemingly disparate objectives of key stakeholders within an enterprise’s practice.
For example, in a recent article titled “Few CFOs view procurement affecting competitiveness,” a study found that of the 11.9% of savings claimed by purchasing, the finance department only booked 3.2%. Besides representing a difference of 73%, this disparity in achieved savings signifies a tremendous disconnect between key stakeholders. Unless this chasm of misunderstanding is bridged, your ability to quantify and define a “collective confidence” will be virtually impossible.
In closing, before you can “quantify” or measure the level of confidence within an organization in terms of its impact on a variety of metrics including influence and outcome, you have to first understand and quantify the individual and collective objectives of the diverse stakeholders both within and external to the enterprise itself.
The most effective way to accomplish this is through a collaborative effort in which an agent-based versus a traditional equation-based model is used.
[Read the complete 2008 Q&A here: https://procureinsights.com/2008/02/28/supply-chain-confidence-a-pi-q-and-a/]
Diana’s Response (February 2008):
Thank you so much
Good Day Jon,
Thank you so much your feedback, it has helped me to gain further insight in the topic as well as clarifying some of my doubts. Your comments and suggestions are so valuable for me. I am hoping that you can give me some assistance in the future.
Sincerely,
Diana Esparza
M.Sc E-Business Technologies
What Happened Next
Diana’s research aimed to prove that confidence relies on six sources: visibility, collaboration, compliance, experience and knowledge, maturity and risk.
I told her that collaboration comes before confidence, not the other way around. That stakeholder alignment must be built systematically through behavioral readiness assessment.
She understood. She valued the insight.
But did the industry act on it?
Five years later, the Procurement Academy documented what happens when we measure confidence but don’t invest in building it:
Source: Procurement Academy, 2013-2015. CPO confidence in team capabilities declined from 48% (2013) to 38% (2015), with only 3.2% of organizations investing more than 1% of budgets in talent development.
Diana asked the right question in 2008: “Can supply chain confidence be measured?”
The industry learned the wrong lesson: We measured it. We documented its decline. We didn’t systematically build it.
Epilogue: 2025
When Diana asked in 2008 whether supply chain confidence could be measured, I told her yes—through systematic assessment of stakeholder alignment and behavioral readiness.
What I’ve learned in the 17 years since is that measurement without systematic investment is just documentation of decline.
The Procurement Academy data shows CPO confidence in their teams dropped from 48% to 38% between 2013-2015, while investment in talent development remained below 1% for most organizations.
Joselina Peralta’s 2025 post about procurement’s visibility problem confirms the pattern persists: value delivered but not recognized, impact created but not translated into board language.
The common thread across all three observations—Diana’s 2008 research, the 2013-2015 confidence decline, and Joselina’s 2025 visibility challenge—is this:
We’ve been measuring, documenting, and discussing the confidence gap for nearly two decades.
We haven’t been systematically closing it.
Closing the gap requires three things most organizations resist:
In my 2008 response to Diana, I wrote: “In the absence of a ‘true’ collaborative process involving key stakeholders, attributes like visibility, compliance, knowledge and maturity will remain elusive to the collective enterprise.”
Seventeen years later, they remain elusive.
Not because we don’t understand the problem.
But because we’ve never built the systematic infrastructure to solve it.
Diana asked whether confidence could be measured.
Joselina identified why visibility remains elusive.
The question now is: Are we ready to actually close the gap?
Or will we spend another 17 years documenting its persistence?
Jon Hansen
Founder, Hansen Models
Creator, Hansen Fit Score (HFS) Methodology
If you’re a CPO tired of the confidence gap, a CFO frustrated by the procurement/finance disconnect, or a transformation leader seeking systematic readiness assessment, let’s talk about what systematic behavioral capacity building can accomplish.
Read the complete 2008 Q&A: https://procureinsights.com/2008/02/28/supply-chain-confidence-a-pi-q-and-a/
30
BONUS COVERAGE: THE GREAT DECLINE?
Share this:
Related