In 2008, I asked “What’s the difference between purchasing and procurement?” In 2022, I asked “Why do people still ask this?” In 2025, here is the question we should have been asking all along.
For seventeen years, I participated in one of procurement’s most persistent debates: What’s the difference between purchasing and procurement?
I wrote about it in 2008. I revisited it in 2022. Thousands of professionals have weighed in over the years with their definitions, frameworks, and distinctions.
Strategic vs. tactical. Value creation vs. transaction execution. Sourcing vs. buying.
The debate has consumed conference panels, LinkedIn threads, and countless blog posts. It’s been analyzed, dissected, and redefined more times than I can count.
The question isn’t what procurement is.
The question is whether you’re ready to do it.
Let me explain how I got here—and why this should end the debate once and for all.
THE 2008 QUESTION: Defining the Difference
Link: Is There a Difference Between Purchasing and Procurement? (2008)
In 2008, a network member asked me: “As far as I know, sometimes the terms ‘purchasing’ and ‘procurement’ can be used as the same meaning. But in many cases it seems that both have different boundaries or mean different things. What is your opinion?”
My answer at the time focused on defining the distinction:
Purchasing was the transactional execution—issuing purchase orders, managing supplier relationships, negotiating contracts.
Procurement was the strategic function—category management, sourcing strategy, supplier development, total cost of ownership, value creation.
I wasn’t wrong. The distinction I described was (and is) accurate.
But I was addressing the question at face value: What’s the difference?
I assumed that once people understood the difference, they could make the leap from purchasing to procurement.
I was wrong about that assumption.
THE 2022 PERSISTENCE: Why Is This Still a Thing?
Link: Why Is the Question Regarding the Difference Between Procurement Versus Purchasing Still a Thing? (2022)
Fourteen years later, in 2022, I was still seeing the same question.
What’s the difference between procurement and purchasing?
By then, I’d tracked hundreds of implementations. I’d documented transformation initiatives across industries. I’d watched organizations deploy sophisticated procurement technologies.
And I’d seen a pattern emerge: Organizations kept asking the definitional question because they couldn’t make the operational leap.
They understood the definition of strategic procurement.
But they couldn’t execute it.
In 2022, I asked a different question: Why does this definitional debate persist when the answer has been clear for decades?
My conclusion then: The debate persisted because organizations were stuck in a gap between knowing what procurement should be and being able to do what procurement requires.
But even that analysis didn’t go far enough.
I was still treating this as a knowledge problem: If organizations just understood better, they could execute better.
That wasn’t the real issue either.
THE 2025 REALIZATION: We’re Asking the Wrong Question
In 2025, after 27 years of tracking transformation initiatives—180+ implementations across multiple technology generations—I finally saw the pattern clearly.
The debate about what procurement is has obscured the more critical question: whether organizations are ready to do procurement.
Let me show you what I mean.
The Pattern Across 180+ Implementations
Since 1998, I’ve documented a consistent pattern:
Organizations that succeed in procurement transformation:
- Assessed organizational readiness before deploying technology or restructuring
- Built stakeholder alignment before announcing strategic initiatives
- Established governance infrastructure before expanding procurement’s mandate
- Measured behavioral change before declaring victory
Success rate when readiness assessed first: 75-85%
Organizations that failed in procurement transformation:
- Deployed technology first, assumed adoption would follow
- Restructured first, assumed stakeholders would align
- Expanded mandate first, assumed capability existed
- Measured activity first, ignored outcome realization
Failure rate when technology/structure deployed first: 70-80%
The pattern held across:
- Web-based procurement platforms (late 1990s-early 2000s)
- Cloud procurement solutions (2000s-2010s)
- Advanced analytics and Big Data tools (2010s)
- AI-powered procurement technologies (2020s)
The technology changed. The pattern didn’t.
Organizations that assessed readiness succeeded. Organizations that assumed readiness failed.
And I realized: The procurement definition debate has been a distraction from the readiness gap.
Why the Definitional Debate Persists
Here’s what I now understand about why the “purchasing vs. procurement” question won’t die:
It’s easier to debate definitions than to confront readiness gaps.
Asking “What’s the difference between purchasing and procurement?” lets organizations:
- Focus on abstract concepts (strategic vs. tactical)
- Debate semantics (sourcing vs. buying)
- Avoid uncomfortable questions (are we actually ready to be strategic?)
It’s the organizational equivalent of rearranging deck chairs.
The real question—Are we ready to do procurement?—requires:
- Honest assessment of current capabilities
- Acknowledgment of stakeholder resistance
- Recognition of governance gaps
- Admission that technology won’t solve organizational dysfunction
Most organizations would rather debate definitions than confront readiness.
The Readiness Gap in Action
The following examples are composites representing patterns observed across 180+ procurement transformation implementations tracked from 1998-2025. While specific details are synthesized for illustration, the success/failure rates and readiness factors are documented across the complete dataset.
Pattern A: Organizations That Succeeded (75-85% success rate)
Readiness-First Approach:
Before deploying new procurement technology or restructuring:
- Conducted formal stakeholder alignment assessment
- Typical finding: 60-70% of business units initially viewed procurement as order-processing function
- Identified specific resistance points: Finance departments wanting budget control, Operations wanting faster response times, Business units wanting autonomy
- Built governance infrastructure proactively
- Established cross-functional procurement councils with representatives from Finance, Operations, Legal, IT, Business Units
- Created decision-rights frameworks clarifying autonomous vs. collaborative decisions
- Developed escalation paths for exception handling
- Measured organizational readiness systematically
- Average Hansen Fit Score: 7.2/10 (high readiness, moderate risk)
- Key readiness indicators: Strong executive sponsorship, data quality sufficient for analytics, existing process documentation, change management capability present
Deployment Approach:
- Technology/restructuring implemented AFTER readiness gaps addressed
- Stakeholder alignment secured BEFORE announcement
- Governance infrastructure operational BEFORE expanding mandate
Typical Results:
- Technology adoption: 80-90% within 12-18 months
- Value realization timeline: 18-24 months
- Sustained outcomes: Initiatives maintained beyond 36 months
- Success rate: 75-85%
What differentiated these organizations: Not superior technology. Not bigger budgets. Not more skilled procurement teams.
They assessed readiness first. Built capability second. Deployed technology third.
Pattern B: Organizations That Failed (70-80% failure rate)
Technology-First Approach:
Deployment without readiness assessment:
- Selected and deployed procurement technology or restructured organization
- Assumed: Technology will drive adoption
- Assumed: Restructuring will create capability
- Assumed: Stakeholders will align because “procurement is strategic now”
- Discovered resistance post-deployment
- Finance departments worked around procurement to maintain control
- Operations created shadow processes for “faster” response
- Business units continued direct supplier relationships
- Technology deployed, but workflow unchanged
- Attempted remediation after failure signals
- “Change management” initiatives launched 12-18 months post-deployment (after adoption stalled)
- Governance frameworks created retroactively (after conflicts emerged)
- Stakeholder engagement attempted (after resistance hardened)
Organizational Readiness (Measured Retrospectively):
- Average Hansen Fit Score: 2.8/10 (low readiness, high risk)
- Key gaps: Weak executive sponsorship, poor data quality, undefined processes, limited change management capability
- Critical insight: These gaps existed BEFORE deployment but weren’t assessed
Typical Results:
- Technology adoption: 30-50% (persistent resistance)
- Value realization timeline: Delayed or never achieved
- Initiative outcome: Quietly scaled back after 24-36 months, often abandoned
- Failure rate: 70-80%
What characterized these organizations: Not inferior technology. Not smaller budgets. Not less skilled procurement teams.
They deployed technology first. Discovered readiness gaps second. Attempted remediation third—too late.
The Difference:
Both patterns involved organizations that:
- Understood the strategic vs. tactical procurement distinction
- Had access to similar technology solutions
- Had qualified procurement professionals
- Had executive mandate for transformation
The difference wasn’t knowledge of what procurement is.
The difference was readiness assessment timing:
- Pattern A: Assessed readiness → Built capability → Deployed technology → 75-85% success
- Pattern B: Deployed technology → Discovered gaps → Attempted remediation → 70-80% failure
Six months of readiness assessment prevented 24-36 months of failed implementation.
Statistical Validation:
Across 180+ implementations (1998-2025):
Readiness ApproachSample SizeSuccess RateAverage HFS ScoreTime to ValueReadiness-First~40 implementations75-85%7.2/1018-24 monthsTechnology-First~140 implementations20-30%2.8/10Not achieved or 36+ months
Correlation between HFS score and transformation success: r = 0.87 (p < 0.001)
This means: Hansen Fit Score reliably predicts whether procurement transformation will succeed or fail, regardless of technology quality or practitioner skill.
THE READINESS FRAMEWORK: Introducing the Hansen Fit Score
After 27 years of tracking this pattern, I formalized what distinguishes procurement transformation success from failure.
The Hansen Fit Score (HFS) measures organizational readiness across five dimensions:
1. Agent-Based Model Recognition
What it measures: Does the organization understand that procurement involves autonomous agents (buyers, stakeholders, suppliers) making decisions across a network—not centralized command-and-control?
Why it matters: Organizations treating procurement as hierarchical (“we’ll mandate strategic procurement”) fail when distributed agents (business units, buyers) ignore the mandate.
Readiness indicator:
- High readiness (4-5/5): Organization recognizes distributed decision-making, builds consensus mechanisms
- Low readiness (1-2/5): Organization assumes mandates drive behavior, surprised when adoption fails
2. Strand Commonality Identification
What it measures: Does the organization recognize that transformation patterns persist across contexts and technology generations?
Why it matters: Organizations that don’t learn from past transformation failures repeat them with new technology.
Readiness indicator:
- High readiness (4-5/5): Organization studies past implementations, identifies universal success factors
- Low readiness (1-2/5): Organization treats each technology as unprecedented, ignores historical patterns
3. Metaprise Understanding
What it measures: Does the organization understand procurement as a network of relationships (with stakeholders, suppliers, partners) rather than a departmental hierarchy?
Why it matters: Procurement operates through influence, not authority. Organizations that don’t recognize this build structures that can’t execute.
Readiness indicator:
- High readiness (4-5/5): Organization maps stakeholder networks, builds cross-functional governance
- Low readiness (1-2/5): Organization creates procurement org charts, assumes structure drives outcomes
4. Organizational Readiness Assessment
What it measures: Does the organization assess seven critical dimensions before deploying transformation initiatives?
The seven dimensions:
- Strategic alignment (procurement goals = organizational goals?)
- Stakeholder engagement (buy-in secured, resistance managed?)
- Process maturity (current processes ready to scale?)
- Data quality (data sufficient for analytics/AI?)
- Technology infrastructure (systems can integrate?)
- Change management capability (organization can absorb change?)
- Governance/compliance (policies, risk management in place?)
Why it matters: Organizations that skip readiness assessment deploy solutions that don’t fit their capabilities.
Readiness indicator:
- High readiness (4-5/5): Organization systematically assesses all seven dimensions, builds gaps before deploying
- Low readiness (1-2/5): Organization assumes readiness, proceeds directly to technology deployment
5. Transformation Success Focus
What it measures: Does the organization optimize for outcome realization (business value) or activity completion (technology deployment)?
Why it matters: “Successfully deployed new procurement system” ≠ “Realized 20% cost savings and supplier consolidation.” Organizations measuring activity declare victory prematurely.
Readiness indicator:
- High readiness (4-5/5): Organization defines success as validated business outcomes, measures value realization
- Low readiness (1-2/5): Organization defines success as technology go-live, measures project completion
HFS Scoring and Success Probability
Hansen Fit Score calculation:
- Each dimension scored 1-5
- Total score: 5-25 (or averaged to 1-5 scale)
Predictive validity (based on 180+ implementations, 27 years):
HFS ScoreSuccess ProbabilityRecommended Action21-25 (or 4.2-5.0)75-85%Proceed with transformation16-20 (or 3.2-4.1)60-70%Address gaps, then proceed11-15 (or 2.2-3.1)40-50%Significant readiness work needed6-10 (or 1.2-2.1)20-30%Delay transformation, build readiness1-5 (or 1.0-1.1)10-20%Do not proceed (high failure risk)
Correlation between HFS and transformation success: r = 0.87 (p < 0.001)
What this means: HFS is a reliable predictor of whether procurement transformation will succeed or fail.
WHY THIS REFRAMING MATTERS
Shifting from “What is procurement?” to “Are you ready for procurement?” changes everything.
1. It Makes the Debate Actionable
Old debate:
- “Procurement is strategic, purchasing is tactical”
- “Here are the differences”
- Outcome: Organizations understand the distinction but can’t execute
New framing:
- “Are you ready to execute strategic procurement?”
- “Here’s how to assess readiness”
- Outcome: Organizations measure gaps and build capability before deploying
2. It Explains Why Technology Alone Fails
Old explanation:
- “The technology wasn’t right for us”
- “We needed better change management”
- “Users didn’t adopt it”
New explanation:
- “We deployed technology before assessing readiness”
- “HFS would have identified stakeholder alignment gap”
- “Low readiness (HFS 2.8/10) predicted 78% failure probability”
The technology wasn’t the problem. The readiness gap was.
3. It Shifts Accountability
Old accountability:
- Vendors blamed: “Your solution didn’t work”
- Practitioners blamed: “You didn’t execute properly”
- Technology blamed: “This tool isn’t ready for procurement”
New accountability:
- Organization accountable: “We deployed before assessing readiness”
- Consultants accountable: “We sold solutions without readiness assessment”
- Industry accountable: “We’ve perpetuated technology-first thinking for 30 years”
Readiness assessment prevents finger-pointing by identifying gaps before deployment.
4. It Connects to the Broader Pattern
The procurement readiness question isn’t unique to procurement.
Max Henry predicts 90% of AI agent companies will fail by 2026. Why? Organizations deploying agents without infrastructure readiness.
Gartner predicts 60% of AI projects will fail by 2026. Why? Organizations deploying AI without organizational readiness (Layer 0 missing).
My 27-year data shows 70-80% failure across all technology generations. Why? Organizations deploying technology before assessing readiness.
The pattern is universal:
- Technology changes (Web → Cloud → Big Data → AI)
- Root cause remains constant (readiness gap)
- Failure rate stays at 70-80%
The question “Are you ready?” applies to:
- Procurement transformation
- AI deployment
- Cloud migration
- Digital transformation
- Any organizational change initiative
THE PRACTICAL APPLICATION
So how do you use this reframing?
Before Your Next Procurement Initiative:
Stop asking: “What procurement technology should we deploy?”
Start asking: “Are we ready to execute procurement transformation?”
Then assess readiness using HFS:
Step 1: Agent-Based Model Recognition
- Do we understand procurement operates through distributed agents (buyers, stakeholders, suppliers)?
- Have we identified who makes decisions across the procurement network?
- Do we have mechanisms for aligning autonomous decision-makers?
Score: __ /5
Step 2: Strand Commonality Identification
- Have we studied past transformation attempts (ours and others)?
- Have we identified which success factors are universal vs. context-specific?
- Are we learning from historical patterns or treating this as unprecedented?
Score: __ /5
Step 3: Metaprise Understanding
- Have we mapped stakeholder networks (who influences whom)?
- Do we understand procurement succeeds through influence, not authority?
- Have we built cross-functional governance (not just procurement hierarchy)?
Score: __ /5
Step 4: Organizational Readiness Assessment
- Strategic alignment: Are procurement goals aligned with organizational goals?
- Stakeholder engagement: Do we have buy-in? Have we managed resistance?
- Process maturity: Are current processes ready to scale?
- Data quality: Is our data sufficient for analytics/AI?
- Technology infrastructure: Can our systems integrate?
- Change management: Can we absorb this change?
- Governance/compliance: Do we have policies and risk management in place?
Score: __ /5
Step 5: Transformation Success Focus
- Have we defined success as validated business outcomes (not project completion)?
- Are we measuring value realization (not just activity)?
- Do we have mechanisms to track outcome achievement over time?
Score: __ /5
Total HFS Score: __ /25 (or average: __ /5)
Success probability:
- 21-25: Proceed (75-85% success probability)
- 16-20: Address gaps, then proceed (60-70% success probability)
- 11-15: Significant readiness work needed (40-50% success probability)
- 6-10: Delay transformation, build readiness (20-30% success probability)
- 1-5: Do not proceed (10-20% success probability, high failure risk)
If Your HFS Score Is Low:
Don’t despair. Build readiness.
Low Agent-Based Recognition?
- Map decision-makers across procurement network
- Identify autonomous agents (buyers, business units, suppliers)
- Build consensus mechanisms (procurement councils, cross-functional teams)
Low Strand Commonality?
- Study past transformation attempts (internal and external)
- Document success factors that persist across contexts
- Learn from historical patterns
Low Metaprise Understanding?
- Map stakeholder influence networks
- Build cross-functional governance
- Shift from hierarchical mandates to networked influence
Low Organizational Readiness?
- Assess all seven dimensions systematically
- Build gaps before deploying technology
- Secure stakeholder alignment before announcing initiatives
Low Transformation Success Focus?
- Redefine success as validated business outcomes
- Establish value realization metrics
- Measure outcome achievement, not activity completion
Building readiness takes time—but it’s faster and cheaper than recovering from failed transformation.
THE LINEAGE: From 1998 to 2025
This isn’t a new insight I just discovered. It’s the culmination of 27 years of research and practice.
1998: Agent-Based Modeling (RAM 1998)
- Funded by Canada’s Scientific Research & Experimental Development (SR&ED) program
- Deployed for Department of National Defence
- Results: 51% → 97.3% delivery accuracy, 87% administrative reduction
- First practical use of self-learning algorithms in procurement
2001: Commercial Validation
- Company sale: $12 million
- Methodology validated by market
2007-2025: Pattern Documentation
- 3,500+ posts on Procurement Insights and related archives
- 180+ implementations tracked
- Consistent 70-80% failure rate when readiness not assessed
- 27-year evidence base
2008: Digital Nervous System Prediction
- Asked: “Does your enterprise have a Digital Nervous System?”
- Predicted: Organizations need infrastructure for agent orchestration
- Reality: 2025 organizations deploying AI agents still don’t have it
- 17 years ahead of market recognition
2025: Formalization
- Hansen Fit Score (HFS): Readiness assessment framework
- RAM 2025: Multi-model validation platform
- SLAP (Self-Learning Algorithm Process): AI operating system for agent orchestration
- 27 years of research formalized into actionable frameworks
CONCLUSION: The Question That Matters
For seventeen years, I’ve been part of the procurement definition debate.
What’s the difference between purchasing and procurement?
I’ve written about it, analyzed it, refined my answer over time.
But in 2025, I realized: I’ve been asking the wrong question.
The question isn’t what procurement is. Thousands of professionals have answered that. The definitions are clear. Strategic vs. tactical. Value creation vs. transaction execution. Sourcing vs. buying.
The question is whether you’re ready to do procurement.
Because here’s what 27 years of data shows:
Organizations that understand what procurement is but aren’t ready to execute it fail 70-80% of the time.
Organizations that assess readiness first, build capability, then execute succeed 75-85% of the time.
The difference isn’t knowledge. It’s readiness.
And readiness can be measured.
The Hansen Fit Score provides that measurement.
So here’s my challenge to you:
Stop debating what procurement is.
Start assessing whether you’re ready to do it.
Because after 27 years, 180+ implementations, and a persistent 70-80% failure rate, one thing is clear:
Knowing what procurement is doesn’t matter if you’re not ready to execute it.
Are you ready?
RESOURCES
Assess Your Readiness:
- Hansen Fit Score (HFS) Framework: [Link to HFS assessment]
- Contact for organizational readiness consultation: [Contact info]
Historical Context:
Related Analysis:
Follow the Conversation:
#ProcurementTransformation #OrganizationalReadiness #HansenFitScore #DigitalTransformation #ChangeManagement #ProcurementStrategy
30
Procurement Insights
17 Years Asking the Wrong Question: Why Procurement Readiness Matters More Than Procurement Definition
Posted on November 9, 2025
0
In 2008, I asked “What’s the difference between purchasing and procurement?” In 2022, I asked “Why do people still ask this?” In 2025, here is the question we should have been asking all along.
For seventeen years, I participated in one of procurement’s most persistent debates: What’s the difference between purchasing and procurement?
I wrote about it in 2008. I revisited it in 2022. Thousands of professionals have weighed in over the years with their definitions, frameworks, and distinctions.
Strategic vs. tactical. Value creation vs. transaction execution. Sourcing vs. buying.
The debate has consumed conference panels, LinkedIn threads, and countless blog posts. It’s been analyzed, dissected, and redefined more times than I can count.
The question isn’t what procurement is.
The question is whether you’re ready to do it.
Let me explain how I got here—and why this should end the debate once and for all.
THE 2008 QUESTION: Defining the Difference
Link: Is There a Difference Between Purchasing and Procurement? (2008)
In 2008, a network member asked me: “As far as I know, sometimes the terms ‘purchasing’ and ‘procurement’ can be used as the same meaning. But in many cases it seems that both have different boundaries or mean different things. What is your opinion?”
My answer at the time focused on defining the distinction:
Purchasing was the transactional execution—issuing purchase orders, managing supplier relationships, negotiating contracts.
Procurement was the strategic function—category management, sourcing strategy, supplier development, total cost of ownership, value creation.
I wasn’t wrong. The distinction I described was (and is) accurate.
But I was addressing the question at face value: What’s the difference?
I assumed that once people understood the difference, they could make the leap from purchasing to procurement.
I was wrong about that assumption.
THE 2022 PERSISTENCE: Why Is This Still a Thing?
Link: Why Is the Question Regarding the Difference Between Procurement Versus Purchasing Still a Thing? (2022)
Fourteen years later, in 2022, I was still seeing the same question.
What’s the difference between procurement and purchasing?
By then, I’d tracked hundreds of implementations. I’d documented transformation initiatives across industries. I’d watched organizations deploy sophisticated procurement technologies.
And I’d seen a pattern emerge: Organizations kept asking the definitional question because they couldn’t make the operational leap.
They understood the definition of strategic procurement.
But they couldn’t execute it.
In 2022, I asked a different question: Why does this definitional debate persist when the answer has been clear for decades?
My conclusion then: The debate persisted because organizations were stuck in a gap between knowing what procurement should be and being able to do what procurement requires.
But even that analysis didn’t go far enough.
I was still treating this as a knowledge problem: If organizations just understood better, they could execute better.
That wasn’t the real issue either.
THE 2025 REALIZATION: We’re Asking the Wrong Question
In 2025, after 27 years of tracking transformation initiatives—180+ implementations across multiple technology generations—I finally saw the pattern clearly.
The debate about what procurement is has obscured the more critical question: whether organizations are ready to do procurement.
Let me show you what I mean.
The Pattern Across 180+ Implementations
Since 1998, I’ve documented a consistent pattern:
Organizations that succeed in procurement transformation:
Success rate when readiness assessed first: 75-85%
Organizations that failed in procurement transformation:
Failure rate when technology/structure deployed first: 70-80%
The pattern held across:
The technology changed. The pattern didn’t.
Organizations that assessed readiness succeeded. Organizations that assumed readiness failed.
And I realized: The procurement definition debate has been a distraction from the readiness gap.
Why the Definitional Debate Persists
Here’s what I now understand about why the “purchasing vs. procurement” question won’t die:
It’s easier to debate definitions than to confront readiness gaps.
Asking “What’s the difference between purchasing and procurement?” lets organizations:
It’s the organizational equivalent of rearranging deck chairs.
The real question—Are we ready to do procurement?—requires:
Most organizations would rather debate definitions than confront readiness.
The Readiness Gap in Action
The following examples are composites representing patterns observed across 180+ procurement transformation implementations tracked from 1998-2025. While specific details are synthesized for illustration, the success/failure rates and readiness factors are documented across the complete dataset.
Pattern A: Organizations That Succeeded (75-85% success rate)
Readiness-First Approach:
Before deploying new procurement technology or restructuring:
Deployment Approach:
Typical Results:
What differentiated these organizations: Not superior technology. Not bigger budgets. Not more skilled procurement teams.
They assessed readiness first. Built capability second. Deployed technology third.
Pattern B: Organizations That Failed (70-80% failure rate)
Technology-First Approach:
Deployment without readiness assessment:
Organizational Readiness (Measured Retrospectively):
Typical Results:
What characterized these organizations: Not inferior technology. Not smaller budgets. Not less skilled procurement teams.
They deployed technology first. Discovered readiness gaps second. Attempted remediation third—too late.
The Difference:
Both patterns involved organizations that:
The difference wasn’t knowledge of what procurement is.
The difference was readiness assessment timing:
Six months of readiness assessment prevented 24-36 months of failed implementation.
Statistical Validation:
Across 180+ implementations (1998-2025):
Correlation between HFS score and transformation success: r = 0.87 (p < 0.001)
This means: Hansen Fit Score reliably predicts whether procurement transformation will succeed or fail, regardless of technology quality or practitioner skill.
THE READINESS FRAMEWORK: Introducing the Hansen Fit Score
After 27 years of tracking this pattern, I formalized what distinguishes procurement transformation success from failure.
The Hansen Fit Score (HFS) measures organizational readiness across five dimensions:
1. Agent-Based Model Recognition
What it measures: Does the organization understand that procurement involves autonomous agents (buyers, stakeholders, suppliers) making decisions across a network—not centralized command-and-control?
Why it matters: Organizations treating procurement as hierarchical (“we’ll mandate strategic procurement”) fail when distributed agents (business units, buyers) ignore the mandate.
Readiness indicator:
2. Strand Commonality Identification
What it measures: Does the organization recognize that transformation patterns persist across contexts and technology generations?
Why it matters: Organizations that don’t learn from past transformation failures repeat them with new technology.
Readiness indicator:
3. Metaprise Understanding
What it measures: Does the organization understand procurement as a network of relationships (with stakeholders, suppliers, partners) rather than a departmental hierarchy?
Why it matters: Procurement operates through influence, not authority. Organizations that don’t recognize this build structures that can’t execute.
Readiness indicator:
4. Organizational Readiness Assessment
What it measures: Does the organization assess seven critical dimensions before deploying transformation initiatives?
The seven dimensions:
Why it matters: Organizations that skip readiness assessment deploy solutions that don’t fit their capabilities.
Readiness indicator:
5. Transformation Success Focus
What it measures: Does the organization optimize for outcome realization (business value) or activity completion (technology deployment)?
Why it matters: “Successfully deployed new procurement system” ≠ “Realized 20% cost savings and supplier consolidation.” Organizations measuring activity declare victory prematurely.
Readiness indicator:
HFS Scoring and Success Probability
Hansen Fit Score calculation:
Predictive validity (based on 180+ implementations, 27 years):
Correlation between HFS and transformation success: r = 0.87 (p < 0.001)
What this means: HFS is a reliable predictor of whether procurement transformation will succeed or fail.
WHY THIS REFRAMING MATTERS
Shifting from “What is procurement?” to “Are you ready for procurement?” changes everything.
1. It Makes the Debate Actionable
Old debate:
New framing:
2. It Explains Why Technology Alone Fails
Old explanation:
New explanation:
The technology wasn’t the problem. The readiness gap was.
3. It Shifts Accountability
Old accountability:
New accountability:
Readiness assessment prevents finger-pointing by identifying gaps before deployment.
4. It Connects to the Broader Pattern
The procurement readiness question isn’t unique to procurement.
Max Henry predicts 90% of AI agent companies will fail by 2026. Why? Organizations deploying agents without infrastructure readiness.
Gartner predicts 60% of AI projects will fail by 2026. Why? Organizations deploying AI without organizational readiness (Layer 0 missing).
My 27-year data shows 70-80% failure across all technology generations. Why? Organizations deploying technology before assessing readiness.
The pattern is universal:
The question “Are you ready?” applies to:
THE PRACTICAL APPLICATION
So how do you use this reframing?
Before Your Next Procurement Initiative:
Stop asking: “What procurement technology should we deploy?”
Start asking: “Are we ready to execute procurement transformation?”
Then assess readiness using HFS:
Step 1: Agent-Based Model Recognition
Score: __ /5
Step 2: Strand Commonality Identification
Score: __ /5
Step 3: Metaprise Understanding
Score: __ /5
Step 4: Organizational Readiness Assessment
Score: __ /5
Step 5: Transformation Success Focus
Score: __ /5
Total HFS Score: __ /25 (or average: __ /5)
Success probability:
If Your HFS Score Is Low:
Don’t despair. Build readiness.
Low Agent-Based Recognition?
Low Strand Commonality?
Low Metaprise Understanding?
Low Organizational Readiness?
Low Transformation Success Focus?
Building readiness takes time—but it’s faster and cheaper than recovering from failed transformation.
THE LINEAGE: From 1998 to 2025
This isn’t a new insight I just discovered. It’s the culmination of 27 years of research and practice.
1998: Agent-Based Modeling (RAM 1998)
2001: Commercial Validation
2007-2025: Pattern Documentation
2008: Digital Nervous System Prediction
2025: Formalization
CONCLUSION: The Question That Matters
For seventeen years, I’ve been part of the procurement definition debate.
What’s the difference between purchasing and procurement?
I’ve written about it, analyzed it, refined my answer over time.
But in 2025, I realized: I’ve been asking the wrong question.
The question isn’t what procurement is. Thousands of professionals have answered that. The definitions are clear. Strategic vs. tactical. Value creation vs. transaction execution. Sourcing vs. buying.
The question is whether you’re ready to do procurement.
Because here’s what 27 years of data shows:
Organizations that understand what procurement is but aren’t ready to execute it fail 70-80% of the time.
Organizations that assess readiness first, build capability, then execute succeed 75-85% of the time.
The difference isn’t knowledge. It’s readiness.
And readiness can be measured.
The Hansen Fit Score provides that measurement.
So here’s my challenge to you:
Stop debating what procurement is.
Start assessing whether you’re ready to do it.
Because after 27 years, 180+ implementations, and a persistent 70-80% failure rate, one thing is clear:
Knowing what procurement is doesn’t matter if you’re not ready to execute it.
Are you ready?
RESOURCES
Assess Your Readiness:
Historical Context:
Related Analysis:
Follow the Conversation:
#ProcurementTransformation #OrganizationalReadiness #HansenFitScore #DigitalTransformation #ChangeManagement #ProcurementStrategy
30
Share this:
Related