Was it a one-time hiccup, or was the “Decoder Ring” post something more?
I recently published a critique of Gartner’s “CIO Board Presentation Prep” wheel — a RAG assessment graphic so dense with encoding systems (colors, shapes, triangle orientations) that I couldn’t parse it. Neither could five AI models I tested it against. Neither, it turns out, could a growing list of CPOs, analysts, and AI professionals who’ve since admitted the same confusion.
That raised a question: Was this wheel an outlier, or a pattern?
I went back through publicly available Gartner visuals from 2025 — infographics, roadmaps, hype cycles, maturity models — and applied a simple test:
Can you make a decision from this graphic without hiring a consultant to explain it?
The answer, in most cases, was no.
The Evidence: A Representative Sample
Here’s what I found across recent Gartner visuals, scored on clarity (1-10, where 10 = immediately actionable):
8 out of 10 score 5 or below. That’s not variation. That’s consistency.
The Pattern: Visual Cohesion Without Operational Cohesion
This isn’t about simplicity versus complexity. Complex problems sometimes require dense visualizations.
The issue is different: These graphics replace causal logic with the appearance of integration.
A wheel implies connection. Concentric rings suggest hierarchy. Color-coded segments feel systematic. But ask the harder question:
If I remove the colors and the circle, what causal logic remains?
- Where’s the strand showing how “Reduce Cost” impacts “Customer Experience”?
- What cascade effect occurs when “Business Continuity” turns red?
- Which failure mode does this model prevent?
The answer, in most cases, is silence.
Integration Theater
I’ve started calling this pattern integration theater — visual cohesion that suggests strategic alignment without demonstrating operational interdependence.
It’s not incompetence. It’s design philosophy. And it serves a purpose:
A graphic you can’t fully parse without expert guidance is a graphic that sells consulting hours.
A framework that identifies priorities without assessing readiness is a framework that never tells clients “you’re not ready yet.”
A visual that implies integration without proving it is a visual that can’t be held accountable when implementation fails.
The Deloitte Parallel — And the Distinction
This year, Deloitte was caught submitting AI-generated government reports with fabricated citations — in Australia ($290,000 refund) and Canada ($1.6 million report under review). The pattern: fluent, plausible, authoritative-looking output that collapsed under scrutiny.
I’m not claiming Gartner used AI to generate these graphics. That’s not the point.
With Deloitte, AI was the mechanism, but the real failure was process and accountability. With Gartner, the question is whether the same lack of accountable structure is hiding behind a sophisticated graphic.
The mechanism differs. The outcome rhymes: Impressive artifacts that don’t hold up when you try to use them.
What the AI Models Revealed
When I tested the CIO wheel against five AI systems, here’s what they could do:
- Describe the segments
- Infer general intent (“prioritization framework”)
- Identify the color/shape encoding
Here’s what they couldn’t do:
- Identify causal rules between segments
- Explain strand logic or interdependencies
- Extract a decision path that didn’t require external interpretation
That’s the tell. If five different AI models — trained on vast corpora of strategic frameworks — can’t find the operational logic, it’s not because the tools are inadequate. It’s because the logic isn’t there.
The Test That Matters
Before your next board presentation, apply this test to any strategic visual:
- Remove the visual formatting — no colors, no circles, no icons
- List what remains — priorities, relationships, dependencies, sequences
- Ask: Which failure mode does this prevent?
If you can’t answer #3, you’re not looking at a strategic framework. You’re looking at integration theater.
The Standard That Should Exist
My methodology — multi-model validation, strand mapping, readiness physics — exists because I kept asking: Why do 80% of implementations fail when the frameworks look so sophisticated?
The answer: Sophistication of appearance is not sophistication of structure.
A real integration framework shows:
- How priorities influence each other
- What cascades when one element fails
- Whether the organization is ready to execute
- Which dependencies must be sequenced
Gartner’s visuals show none of this. They show vocabulary arranged in circles.
The Uncomfortable Conclusion
This isn’t a design flaw. It’s a design choice.
And that choice — visual cohesion without operational cohesion — is why the 80% failure rate stays flat while the graphics keep getting prettier.
The technology evolves. The visuals evolve. The failure rate doesn’t.
This visual language structurally cannot support readiness, accountability, or outcome ownership — and that’s why failure persists.
The next time someone presents you with an impressive circular framework, ask one question: “Which failure mode does this prevent?” If they can’t answer, you’re looking at integration theater — not strategy.
P.S. — I ran this pattern analysis past multiple AI models. They all converged on the same conclusion: visual sophistication without causal structure. When independent systems agree with 42 years of practitioner experience, that’s not opinion. That’s a signal.
-30-
Now I Know Why I Felt Stupid
For years, I looked at Gartner’s graphics and assumed the problem was me. Too old. Not visual enough. Missing something everyone else seemed to understand.
Then I ran the wheel past five AI models. They couldn’t find the connections either.
Now I understand: my instinct wasn’t confusion. It was pattern literacy.
After decades of working with readiness physics, causal chains, agent behavior, operational dependencies, and outcome accountability, my brain is trained to ask: “Okay — what happens next?”
When nothing happens next, my system flags it as broken.
Most people don’t trust that instinct. They assume the problem is them.
It isn’t.
If you’ve ever stared at a sophisticated framework and felt lost, trust that feeling. Your confusion isn’t a deficiency. It’s a diagnostic. It’s your pattern recognition telling you something essential is missing.
The question isn’t “Why don’t I get this?”
The question is: “What isn’t this telling me?”
Procurement Insights
Gartner’s Visual Language: Design Flaw or Design Choice?
Posted on December 15, 2025
0
Was it a one-time hiccup, or was the “Decoder Ring” post something more?
I recently published a critique of Gartner’s “CIO Board Presentation Prep” wheel — a RAG assessment graphic so dense with encoding systems (colors, shapes, triangle orientations) that I couldn’t parse it. Neither could five AI models I tested it against. Neither, it turns out, could a growing list of CPOs, analysts, and AI professionals who’ve since admitted the same confusion.
That raised a question: Was this wheel an outlier, or a pattern?
I went back through publicly available Gartner visuals from 2025 — infographics, roadmaps, hype cycles, maturity models — and applied a simple test:
Can you make a decision from this graphic without hiring a consultant to explain it?
The answer, in most cases, was no.
The Evidence: A Representative Sample
Here’s what I found across recent Gartner visuals, scored on clarity (1-10, where 10 = immediately actionable):
8 out of 10 score 5 or below. That’s not variation. That’s consistency.
The Pattern: Visual Cohesion Without Operational Cohesion
This isn’t about simplicity versus complexity. Complex problems sometimes require dense visualizations.
The issue is different: These graphics replace causal logic with the appearance of integration.
A wheel implies connection. Concentric rings suggest hierarchy. Color-coded segments feel systematic. But ask the harder question:
If I remove the colors and the circle, what causal logic remains?
The answer, in most cases, is silence.
Integration Theater
I’ve started calling this pattern integration theater — visual cohesion that suggests strategic alignment without demonstrating operational interdependence.
It’s not incompetence. It’s design philosophy. And it serves a purpose:
A graphic you can’t fully parse without expert guidance is a graphic that sells consulting hours.
A framework that identifies priorities without assessing readiness is a framework that never tells clients “you’re not ready yet.”
A visual that implies integration without proving it is a visual that can’t be held accountable when implementation fails.
The Deloitte Parallel — And the Distinction
This year, Deloitte was caught submitting AI-generated government reports with fabricated citations — in Australia ($290,000 refund) and Canada ($1.6 million report under review). The pattern: fluent, plausible, authoritative-looking output that collapsed under scrutiny.
I’m not claiming Gartner used AI to generate these graphics. That’s not the point.
With Deloitte, AI was the mechanism, but the real failure was process and accountability. With Gartner, the question is whether the same lack of accountable structure is hiding behind a sophisticated graphic.
The mechanism differs. The outcome rhymes: Impressive artifacts that don’t hold up when you try to use them.
What the AI Models Revealed
When I tested the CIO wheel against five AI systems, here’s what they could do:
Here’s what they couldn’t do:
That’s the tell. If five different AI models — trained on vast corpora of strategic frameworks — can’t find the operational logic, it’s not because the tools are inadequate. It’s because the logic isn’t there.
The Test That Matters
Before your next board presentation, apply this test to any strategic visual:
If you can’t answer #3, you’re not looking at a strategic framework. You’re looking at integration theater.
The Standard That Should Exist
My methodology — multi-model validation, strand mapping, readiness physics — exists because I kept asking: Why do 80% of implementations fail when the frameworks look so sophisticated?
The answer: Sophistication of appearance is not sophistication of structure.
A real integration framework shows:
Gartner’s visuals show none of this. They show vocabulary arranged in circles.
The Uncomfortable Conclusion
This isn’t a design flaw. It’s a design choice.
And that choice — visual cohesion without operational cohesion — is why the 80% failure rate stays flat while the graphics keep getting prettier.
The technology evolves. The visuals evolve. The failure rate doesn’t.
This visual language structurally cannot support readiness, accountability, or outcome ownership — and that’s why failure persists.
The next time someone presents you with an impressive circular framework, ask one question: “Which failure mode does this prevent?” If they can’t answer, you’re looking at integration theater — not strategy.
P.S. — I ran this pattern analysis past multiple AI models. They all converged on the same conclusion: visual sophistication without causal structure. When independent systems agree with 42 years of practitioner experience, that’s not opinion. That’s a signal.
-30-
Now I Know Why I Felt Stupid
For years, I looked at Gartner’s graphics and assumed the problem was me. Too old. Not visual enough. Missing something everyone else seemed to understand.
Then I ran the wheel past five AI models. They couldn’t find the connections either.
Now I understand: my instinct wasn’t confusion. It was pattern literacy.
After decades of working with readiness physics, causal chains, agent behavior, operational dependencies, and outcome accountability, my brain is trained to ask: “Okay — what happens next?”
When nothing happens next, my system flags it as broken.
Most people don’t trust that instinct. They assume the problem is them.
It isn’t.
If you’ve ever stared at a sophisticated framework and felt lost, trust that feeling. Your confusion isn’t a deficiency. It’s a diagnostic. It’s your pattern recognition telling you something essential is missing.
The question isn’t “Why don’t I get this?”
The question is: “What isn’t this telling me?”
Share this:
Related