By Jon Hansen | Procurement Insights | January 2026
“Gartner is not wrong. They are simply not designed to solve the problem of implementation success in the AI era.”
For more than four decades, I’ve tracked the frequencies of this industry.
Through the Procurement Insights archives (2007–2025), and my earlier work dating back to the 1990s, I’ve documented every major technology wave: ERP, e-procurement, digital transformation, and now AI and agentic systems.
I’ve also spent a significant portion of that time analyzing, questioning, and critiquing Gartner.
Today, that coverage ends.
This is not a reaction.
It is the final connection.
The Realization: Gartner Is a Constant, Not a Variable
Through the lens of Strand Commonality and the RAM 2025 5-MODEL assessment, I reached a baseline conclusion that is no longer debatable:
Gartner is Gartner.
They provide a specific service—strategic intensity for the vendor race.
But across 45 years of advising enterprises, their involvement has not moved the success needle for practitioners.
The failure rate was 70–80% in the ERP era.
It remained 70–80% through e-procurement.
It persisted through digital transformation.
And today, AI initiatives are projected to see 40%+ cancellation rates.
Different decades.
Different technologies.
Same outcomes.
That tells us something fundamental: Gartner is not wrong.
They are simply not designed to solve the problem of implementation success in the AI era.
The Evidence: A 45-Year Blame Pattern
I asked a simple question this week:
How many times has Gartner attributed transformation failure to the client?
The documented answer, across decades of predictions and post-mortems, is: every time.
The language changes, but the direction never does:
- “Organizations lack experience and expertise”
- “Fixed mindsets”
- “Culture blindness”
- “Lack of a clear digital vision”
- “Directive leadership styles”
- “Resistance to change”
- “Executives need to evolve AI savviness”
Translation: It’s always the organization’s fault.
After 45 years of advising executives, if executives are still “not ready,” that stops being insight and starts being avoidance.
What Gartner Has on the Line (and What Clients Do)
Here is the asymmetry no framework diagram ever shows:
- Gartner’s exposure:
Subscription revenue continues regardless of outcome. Predictions expire and are replaced. There are no consequences for failure.
- Client exposure:
Millions lost on failed implementations. Careers damaged. Teams blamed. Practitioner abandonment. Projects quietly shut down.
This is why Gartner can afford to be perpetually right in theory—and perpetually absent in outcomes.
Advice without accountability is not strategy.
This Isn’t Anti-Gartner. It’s Post-Gartner.
This distinction matters.
Gartner will remain Gartner. They are not going to change—and they don’t need to. Their business model depends on:
- Predictions without accountability
- Frameworks that assume readiness without measuring it
- Advice with no skin in the game
- Passive-voice forecasts that never fail—only “underperform”
Continuing to track a constant does not produce new insight.
I’m not burning a bridge.
I’m walking toward higher ground.
Why I’m Moving On
Procurement transformations don’t fail because leaders lack definitions.
They fail because organizations skip Phase 0—the readiness, governance, and practitioner-fit work that determines whether technology can succeed in a given environment.
Phase 0 is the missing layer every framework assumes and none measure.
That is where failure is either prevented—or guaranteed.
What I’m Choosing Instead
Effective immediately, Procurement Insights will no longer track Gartner predictions, quadrants, or hype cycles as a primary focus.
Instead, my work will focus exclusively on:
1. Organizations Committed to Success
Not organizations looking for someone to blame—but those willing to break the 70–80% failure cycle.
2. Phase 0 Readiness Mandates
Treating organizational readiness as a board-level fiduciary responsibility, not a soft pre-work exercise:
- Governance capability
- Collaboration maturity
- Data discipline
- Change absorption
- Knowledge transfer
- Pattern recognition
3. The Hansen Fit Score
A methodology proven in a production environment—not a simulation or theory:
- 97.3% delivery accuracy achieved in 1998
- 23% cost reduction sustained over seven years
- Independently validated again in 2025
- 27 years of documented evidence
This is not commentary.
It is commitment.
The “Pilot” Mindset Revisited
In 1998, I believed scalability meant handing results to larger institutions. I was wrong.
What scales in this industry is engagement—not outcomes.
Today, I’m returning to the pilot mindset: working only with pioneer organizations willing to audit readiness honestly, hold boards accountable, and move the success needle to 70% and beyond.
The Bottom Line
Gartner is Gartner.
They are not worth my time—not because they lack intelligence, but because they are irrelevant to the problem of implementation success in this new “should-and-must-succeed” era.
Phase 0 is not a theory.
The Hansen Fit Score is not an opinion.
The question isn’t whether your executives are savvy enough.
The question is whether your organization is ready to absorb what your executives approve.
If you want a prediction, call Gartner.
If you want to survive implementation, let’s talk about Phase 0.
-30-
Procurement Insights
Why I’m Done Tracking Gartner — and What I’m Focusing on Instead
Posted on January 10, 2026
0
By Jon Hansen | Procurement Insights | January 2026
“Gartner is not wrong. They are simply not designed to solve the problem of implementation success in the AI era.”
For more than four decades, I’ve tracked the frequencies of this industry.
Through the Procurement Insights archives (2007–2025), and my earlier work dating back to the 1990s, I’ve documented every major technology wave: ERP, e-procurement, digital transformation, and now AI and agentic systems.
I’ve also spent a significant portion of that time analyzing, questioning, and critiquing Gartner.
Today, that coverage ends.
This is not a reaction.
It is the final connection.
The Realization: Gartner Is a Constant, Not a Variable
Through the lens of Strand Commonality and the RAM 2025 5-MODEL assessment, I reached a baseline conclusion that is no longer debatable:
Gartner is Gartner.
They provide a specific service—strategic intensity for the vendor race.
But across 45 years of advising enterprises, their involvement has not moved the success needle for practitioners.
The failure rate was 70–80% in the ERP era.
It remained 70–80% through e-procurement.
It persisted through digital transformation.
And today, AI initiatives are projected to see 40%+ cancellation rates.
Different decades.
Different technologies.
Same outcomes.
That tells us something fundamental: Gartner is not wrong.
They are simply not designed to solve the problem of implementation success in the AI era.
The Evidence: A 45-Year Blame Pattern
I asked a simple question this week:
How many times has Gartner attributed transformation failure to the client?
The documented answer, across decades of predictions and post-mortems, is: every time.
The language changes, but the direction never does:
Translation: It’s always the organization’s fault.
After 45 years of advising executives, if executives are still “not ready,” that stops being insight and starts being avoidance.
What Gartner Has on the Line (and What Clients Do)
Here is the asymmetry no framework diagram ever shows:
Subscription revenue continues regardless of outcome. Predictions expire and are replaced. There are no consequences for failure.
Millions lost on failed implementations. Careers damaged. Teams blamed. Practitioner abandonment. Projects quietly shut down.
This is why Gartner can afford to be perpetually right in theory—and perpetually absent in outcomes.
Advice without accountability is not strategy.
This Isn’t Anti-Gartner. It’s Post-Gartner.
This distinction matters.
Gartner will remain Gartner. They are not going to change—and they don’t need to. Their business model depends on:
Continuing to track a constant does not produce new insight.
I’m not burning a bridge.
I’m walking toward higher ground.
Why I’m Moving On
Procurement transformations don’t fail because leaders lack definitions.
They fail because organizations skip Phase 0—the readiness, governance, and practitioner-fit work that determines whether technology can succeed in a given environment.
Phase 0 is the missing layer every framework assumes and none measure.
That is where failure is either prevented—or guaranteed.
What I’m Choosing Instead
Effective immediately, Procurement Insights will no longer track Gartner predictions, quadrants, or hype cycles as a primary focus.
Instead, my work will focus exclusively on:
1. Organizations Committed to Success
Not organizations looking for someone to blame—but those willing to break the 70–80% failure cycle.
2. Phase 0 Readiness Mandates
Treating organizational readiness as a board-level fiduciary responsibility, not a soft pre-work exercise:
3. The Hansen Fit Score
A methodology proven in a production environment—not a simulation or theory:
This is not commentary.
It is commitment.
The “Pilot” Mindset Revisited
In 1998, I believed scalability meant handing results to larger institutions. I was wrong.
What scales in this industry is engagement—not outcomes.
Today, I’m returning to the pilot mindset: working only with pioneer organizations willing to audit readiness honestly, hold boards accountable, and move the success needle to 70% and beyond.
The Bottom Line
Gartner is Gartner.
They are not worth my time—not because they lack intelligence, but because they are irrelevant to the problem of implementation success in this new “should-and-must-succeed” era.
Phase 0 is not a theory.
The Hansen Fit Score is not an opinion.
The question isn’t whether your executives are savvy enough.
The question is whether your organization is ready to absorb what your executives approve.
If you want a prediction, call Gartner.
If you want to survive implementation, let’s talk about Phase 0.
-30-
Share this:
Related