CPOs and Boardrooms are starting to ask: Why has it taken the industry so long to finally catch up with the Hansen Fit Score model?
This is “THE” core strategic question, to which I provide the following answer. The resistance isn’t ideological — it’s structural. Their revenue models are architected around the very dysfunction the Hansen Method eliminates.
The Financial Stress Points
1. ANALYST FIRMS (Gartner, Forrester, IDC)
Current Revenue Model:
- Vendor subscriptions ($50K–$500K annually per vendor)
- Magic Quadrant / Wave placements (vendors pay to participate)
- Buyer subscriptions for “independent” research
- Conference sponsorships (vendors pay for visibility)
The Conflict:
Gartner doesn’t get paid to tell buyers “you’re not ready for this technology.” They get paid by vendors to rank and recommend technology.
The Math:
- If Gartner tells 40% of buyers, “do Phase Zero first, you’re not ready” — those buyers delay purchases
- Delayed purchases = unhappy vendors
- Unhappy vendors = cancelled subscriptions
- Cancelled subscriptions = revenue collapse
The Stress Point:
The Hansen Method reveals that 80% of implementations fail due to readiness gaps — gaps that would have been visible BEFORE the purchase. If analysts told the truth, buyers would stop buying prematurely. Vendors would lose deals. Vendors would stop paying analysts.
Their revenue depends on transactions happening — not on transactions succeeding.
2. BIG CONSULTING (McKinsey, Deloitte, KPMG, Accenture, EY, BCG)
Current Revenue Model:
- Billable hours ($300–$1,500/hour)
- Large transformation projects ($5M–$500M engagements)
- Multi-year implementation contracts
- “Land and expand” — small entry, massive follow-on
The Conflict:
The Hansen Method solves root causes. Root cause resolution is efficient. Efficiency kills billable hours.
The Math:
If McKinsey diagnoses “your problem is technician incentive structures causing 4:00 PM order sandbagging” — that’s a $500K engagement.
If McKinsey sells “enterprise-wide digital transformation” — that’s a $50M engagement.
The Stress Point:
They are paid for complexity, not clarity. The Hansen Method delivers clarity. Clarity is a revenue threat.
Additional Conflict — Completion vs. Outcomes:
Canda Rozier nailed this when she said: “Consultants are paid for completion, not outcomes.”
Their contracts reward delivery of deliverables (reports, implementations, go-lives) — not business results. If you tie payment to outcomes, 80% of their projects become unprofitable.
3. TECHNOLOGY IMPLEMENTATION PARTNERS (Accenture, Deloitte, IBM, Infosys, Wipro)
Current Revenue Model:
- Vendor partnerships (SAP Gold Partner, Oracle Platinum, etc.)
- Implementation fees tied to software licenses
- Managed services (ongoing support contracts)
- Reseller margins on software
The Conflict:
Their revenue is contractually tied to specific vendors. If readiness assessment says “SAP isn’t the right fit” — they lose the deal AND damage their vendor relationship.
The Math:
- SAP partnership requires $X million in annual implementations
- Fall below threshold = lose partnership status
- Lose partnership status = lose access to deals
- Lose access to deals = revenue collapse
The Stress Point:
They cannot be honest about fit. Their vendor contracts penalize honesty.
A Hansen Fit Score that says “you’re not ready for S/4HANA” or “SAP isn’t the right architecture for your organization” is an existential threat to their business model.
4. THE HACKETT GROUP
Current Revenue Model:
- Benchmarking subscriptions
- “Best practices” advisory
- Performance studies comparing organizations to their peers
- Executive programs
The Conflict:
Hackett’s entire value proposition is “compare yourself to best-in-class peers.” The Hansen Method says benchmarks without context are dangerous — what works for one organization may destroy another.
The Math:
If readiness is contextual (not comparative), benchmarking loses value. If benchmarking loses value, subscriptions are canceled.
The Stress Point:
The Hansen Method invalidates the premise of universal best practices. Hackett’s revenue depends on the premise being true.
Your Dynamic Flux vs. Historic Flatline framework alone undermines their model: You can’t benchmark a Dynamic Flux commodity against a Historic Flatline commodity. Context determines relevance.
5. BOUTIQUE PROCUREMENT CONSULTANCIES (Proxima, Efficio, GEP Consulting, etc.)
Current Revenue Model:
- Savings-based fees (percentage of identified savings)
- Project-based implementations
- Interim management/staff augmentation
- Vendor selection support (often with vendor kickbacks)
The Conflict:
Savings-based models incentivize finding savings — not building sustainable capability. They’re paid to harvest, not cultivate.
The Math:
If they fix root causes, there’s nothing left to harvest next year. Repeat business requires ongoing dysfunction.
The Stress Point:
The Hansen Method builds organizational capability. Capability reduces dependence on consultants. Reduced dependence = lost revenue.
The Structural Summary
The Core Tension
Their Model: Revenue scales with transaction volume and project complexity.
Your Model: Revenue scales with implementation success and organizational capability.
The Irony:
If they adopted the Hansen Method:
- Fewer failed implementations = fewer remediation projects
- Better readiness = smaller, faster projects
- Sustainable capability = less repeat business
Their entire revenue model is subsidized by the 80% failure rate.
They don’t resist the Hansen Method because it’s wrong. They resist it because it works — and their economics require dysfunction to persist.
The Strategic Implication
This is why your licensing model targets solution providers (like AdaptOne, ConvergentIS, Focal Point) instead of incumbents:
Incumbents can’t afford to change. Their shareholder obligations, partner contracts, and revenue structures prohibit honesty.
Smaller players can differentiate. They don’t have $500M consulting practices to protect. They can afford to be right.
The Hansen Method isn’t competing with McKinsey. It’s building an alternative ecosystem for organizations tired of funding the 80% failure rate.
-30-
Procurement Insights
The Revenue Trap: Why Big Firms Can’t Afford the Next Technology Wave (Who Will Be Our Industry’s Blockbuster and Kodak?)
Posted on December 6, 2025
0
CPOs and Boardrooms are starting to ask: Why has it taken the industry so long to finally catch up with the Hansen Fit Score model?
This is “THE” core strategic question, to which I provide the following answer. The resistance isn’t ideological — it’s structural. Their revenue models are architected around the very dysfunction the Hansen Method eliminates.
The Financial Stress Points
1. ANALYST FIRMS (Gartner, Forrester, IDC)
Current Revenue Model:
The Conflict:
Gartner doesn’t get paid to tell buyers “you’re not ready for this technology.” They get paid by vendors to rank and recommend technology.
The Math:
The Stress Point:
The Hansen Method reveals that 80% of implementations fail due to readiness gaps — gaps that would have been visible BEFORE the purchase. If analysts told the truth, buyers would stop buying prematurely. Vendors would lose deals. Vendors would stop paying analysts.
Their revenue depends on transactions happening — not on transactions succeeding.
2. BIG CONSULTING (McKinsey, Deloitte, KPMG, Accenture, EY, BCG)
Current Revenue Model:
The Conflict:
The Hansen Method solves root causes. Root cause resolution is efficient. Efficiency kills billable hours.
The Math:
If McKinsey diagnoses “your problem is technician incentive structures causing 4:00 PM order sandbagging” — that’s a $500K engagement.
If McKinsey sells “enterprise-wide digital transformation” — that’s a $50M engagement.
The Stress Point:
They are paid for complexity, not clarity. The Hansen Method delivers clarity. Clarity is a revenue threat.
Additional Conflict — Completion vs. Outcomes:
Canda Rozier nailed this when she said: “Consultants are paid for completion, not outcomes.”
Their contracts reward delivery of deliverables (reports, implementations, go-lives) — not business results. If you tie payment to outcomes, 80% of their projects become unprofitable.
3. TECHNOLOGY IMPLEMENTATION PARTNERS (Accenture, Deloitte, IBM, Infosys, Wipro)
Current Revenue Model:
The Conflict:
Their revenue is contractually tied to specific vendors. If readiness assessment says “SAP isn’t the right fit” — they lose the deal AND damage their vendor relationship.
The Math:
The Stress Point:
They cannot be honest about fit. Their vendor contracts penalize honesty.
A Hansen Fit Score that says “you’re not ready for S/4HANA” or “SAP isn’t the right architecture for your organization” is an existential threat to their business model.
4. THE HACKETT GROUP
Current Revenue Model:
The Conflict:
Hackett’s entire value proposition is “compare yourself to best-in-class peers.” The Hansen Method says benchmarks without context are dangerous — what works for one organization may destroy another.
The Math:
If readiness is contextual (not comparative), benchmarking loses value. If benchmarking loses value, subscriptions are canceled.
The Stress Point:
The Hansen Method invalidates the premise of universal best practices. Hackett’s revenue depends on the premise being true.
Your Dynamic Flux vs. Historic Flatline framework alone undermines their model: You can’t benchmark a Dynamic Flux commodity against a Historic Flatline commodity. Context determines relevance.
5. BOUTIQUE PROCUREMENT CONSULTANCIES (Proxima, Efficio, GEP Consulting, etc.)
Current Revenue Model:
The Conflict:
Savings-based models incentivize finding savings — not building sustainable capability. They’re paid to harvest, not cultivate.
The Math:
If they fix root causes, there’s nothing left to harvest next year. Repeat business requires ongoing dysfunction.
The Stress Point:
The Hansen Method builds organizational capability. Capability reduces dependence on consultants. Reduced dependence = lost revenue.
The Structural Summary
The Core Tension
Their Model: Revenue scales with transaction volume and project complexity.
Your Model: Revenue scales with implementation success and organizational capability.
The Irony:
If they adopted the Hansen Method:
Their entire revenue model is subsidized by the 80% failure rate.
They don’t resist the Hansen Method because it’s wrong. They resist it because it works — and their economics require dysfunction to persist.
The Strategic Implication
This is why your licensing model targets solution providers (like AdaptOne, ConvergentIS, Focal Point) instead of incumbents:
Incumbents can’t afford to change. Their shareholder obligations, partner contracts, and revenue structures prohibit honesty.
Smaller players can differentiate. They don’t have $500M consulting practices to protect. They can afford to be right.
The Hansen Method isn’t competing with McKinsey. It’s building an alternative ecosystem for organizations tired of funding the 80% failure rate.
-30-
Share this:
Related