It is not what you say, or even what you know; it’s what you do.
Over the past few months, senior leaders have been sending me a steady flow of graphic outputs from analyst and consulting firms. Almost every message is accompanied by the same question:
“What is Gartner actually saying here, and how does it fit with the Hansen Fit Score and the Phase 0 readiness framework?”
The diagrams come well-packaged.
The language sounds increasingly sophisticated.
You see phrases like misalignment, AI governance, skills readiness, strategic linkage, even behavioral risk.
In other words: Gartner is learning the vocabulary of failure.
But the deeper question remains unanswered:
Is Gartner finally addressing the underlying causes of AI implementation failure,
or are these simply surface gestures designed to preserve the same technology-first revenue model?
Below are three recent Gartner graphics (sent to me by Michael Lamoureux).
Let’s decode what they signal — and what they carefully avoid.
1. The Ladder: Strategy → Plans → Operations
(“Marketing plans must ladder up”)
This looks harmless: a cleanly stacked diagram connecting operational plans to strategic goals.
But hidden in this simplicity is a very large assumption:
That alignment exists because you’ve declared it in a slide.
In the real world — especially Fortune 500 environments — alignment is not structural by default.
It is measured, earned, and often absent.
The ladder graphic assumes:
- shared definitions,
- shared incentives,
- shared governance,
- and the capacity to absorb change.
Without these, the ladder becomes exactly what many organizations experience:
a tool for communicating strategy, not executing it.
Where the Hansen Models differ:
Phase 0 does not assume alignment.
It tests it.
And if the foundation is misaligned, no ladder — no matter how well drawn — can bear the weight placed upon it.
2. The Misalignment Radar: “What organizations are doing right and wrong”
This graphic is more interesting because Gartner is finally acknowledging something practitioners have lived with for 20 years:
misalignment kills initiatives more reliably than technical limitations.
At first glance, this chart feels like progress.
It names:
- governance
- user training
- prioritization
- AI model development
- use-case funding
But here’s the catch:
Gartner treats misalignment as a label, not a causal mechanism.
Their recommended actions — “hybridize” and “centralize” — are org-chart verbs, not organizational diagnostics.
No examination of:
- cross-functional trust,
- incentive incompatibility,
- behavioral adoption barriers,
- readiness deficits,
- or agent dynamics.
In other words:
They name the symptoms without diagnosing the disease.
Where the Hansen Models differ:
Misalignment is not cosmetic.
It is quantifiable.
Through Phase 0 and the Hansen Fit Score, misalignment becomes:
- a measurable readiness gap,
- a predictor of failure,
- and a pre-implementation red flag.
The Gartner radar points toward the problem.
HFS measures the depth of it.
3. The 2026+ Strategic Predictions
This third graphic is classic Gartner: bold predictions, dramatic language, and a webinar registration link.
You see statements like:
- “AI governance might own you.”
- “AI-driven decision automation risks catastrophic loss.”
- “A surge of lazy thinking.”
- “AI agents transcend processes.”
These are not insignificant claims.
They show Gartner is increasingly aware of the systemic risks that accompany AI expansion.
But once again, the problem is not what they predict.
It’s what they won’t model.
Not one prediction addresses:
- why prior waves (ERP, e-Procurement, Cloud/SaaS) failed at ~80%,
- what organizational readiness looks like,
- how structural incentives undermine adoption,
- or how human agents determine outcomes long before technology does.
The predictions feel urgent, but they lack mechanics.
They provoke concern, but provide no framework.
Where the Hansen Models differ:
Before predicting the future, we measure the present.
Before identifying risk, we identify causality.
Predictions don’t prevent failure.
Readiness does.
The Real Issue Behind All Three Graphs
Across all three graphics, Gartner appears to be circling the themes that matter:
- misalignment
- governance
- skill gaps
- AI risk
- cross-functional strain
- structural inconsistency
And this is, in fact, progress.
But it is progress in vocabulary, not in physics.
The diagrams gesture toward the problem, but do not confront the full truth:
Suitability ≠ success.
Technique ≠ readiness.
Alignment ≠ declared — it is measured.
The 80% implementation failure rate isn’t caused by choosing the wrong technique on a heat map.
It’s caused by deploying technology into an organization that lacks the structural capacity to absorb it.
Gartner can describe the terrain.
They cannot map causality.
That is the limitation of the analyst model.
And it is why their diagrams continue to look intelligent while producing no measurable improvement in success rates.
-30-
Procurement Insights
When Diagrams Aren’t Enough: What Gartner’s New AI Graphics Reveal — and What They Still Can’t Say
Posted on December 8, 2025
0
It is not what you say, or even what you know; it’s what you do.
Over the past few months, senior leaders have been sending me a steady flow of graphic outputs from analyst and consulting firms. Almost every message is accompanied by the same question:
“What is Gartner actually saying here, and how does it fit with the Hansen Fit Score and the Phase 0 readiness framework?”
The diagrams come well-packaged.
The language sounds increasingly sophisticated.
You see phrases like misalignment, AI governance, skills readiness, strategic linkage, even behavioral risk.
In other words: Gartner is learning the vocabulary of failure.
But the deeper question remains unanswered:
Below are three recent Gartner graphics (sent to me by Michael Lamoureux).
Let’s decode what they signal — and what they carefully avoid.
1. The Ladder: Strategy → Plans → Operations
(“Marketing plans must ladder up”)
This looks harmless: a cleanly stacked diagram connecting operational plans to strategic goals.
But hidden in this simplicity is a very large assumption:
In the real world — especially Fortune 500 environments — alignment is not structural by default.
It is measured, earned, and often absent.
The ladder graphic assumes:
Without these, the ladder becomes exactly what many organizations experience:
a tool for communicating strategy, not executing it.
Where the Hansen Models differ:
Phase 0 does not assume alignment.
It tests it.
And if the foundation is misaligned, no ladder — no matter how well drawn — can bear the weight placed upon it.
2. The Misalignment Radar: “What organizations are doing right and wrong”
This graphic is more interesting because Gartner is finally acknowledging something practitioners have lived with for 20 years:
misalignment kills initiatives more reliably than technical limitations.
At first glance, this chart feels like progress.
It names:
But here’s the catch:
Their recommended actions — “hybridize” and “centralize” — are org-chart verbs, not organizational diagnostics.
No examination of:
In other words:
They name the symptoms without diagnosing the disease.
Where the Hansen Models differ:
Misalignment is not cosmetic.
It is quantifiable.
Through Phase 0 and the Hansen Fit Score, misalignment becomes:
The Gartner radar points toward the problem.
HFS measures the depth of it.
3. The 2026+ Strategic Predictions
This third graphic is classic Gartner: bold predictions, dramatic language, and a webinar registration link.
You see statements like:
These are not insignificant claims.
They show Gartner is increasingly aware of the systemic risks that accompany AI expansion.
But once again, the problem is not what they predict.
It’s what they won’t model.
Not one prediction addresses:
The predictions feel urgent, but they lack mechanics.
They provoke concern, but provide no framework.
Where the Hansen Models differ:
Before predicting the future, we measure the present.
Before identifying risk, we identify causality.
Predictions don’t prevent failure.
Readiness does.
The Real Issue Behind All Three Graphs
Across all three graphics, Gartner appears to be circling the themes that matter:
And this is, in fact, progress.
But it is progress in vocabulary, not in physics.
The diagrams gesture toward the problem, but do not confront the full truth:
The 80% implementation failure rate isn’t caused by choosing the wrong technique on a heat map.
It’s caused by deploying technology into an organization that lacks the structural capacity to absorb it.
Gartner can describe the terrain.
They cannot map causality.
That is the limitation of the analyst model.
And it is why their diagrams continue to look intelligent while producing no measurable improvement in success rates.
-30-
Share this:
Related