I would rather deal with people who are more interested in being right than those who are more fearful of being wrong.
That single distinction explains why the content we share publicly on Procurement Insights focuses on the why, while the gated content focuses on the how.
The Problem With Giving Away the “How”
In 2011, I wrote a post titled Madison Avenue ooops . . . make that Gartner, names Oracle as a leader in supply chain planning. It traced the ownership and funding relationships behind Gartner — from Saatchi & Saatchi (an advertising firm) to Bain Capital to Oracle — and asked a simple question:
Why would an analyst firm praise a vendor with an “atrocious track record” on implementations?
The answer: because their business model rewards positioning, not outcomes.
That pattern hasn’t changed. It’s just wearing new clothes.
“Readiness” Is the New Buzzword
Today, everyone talks about “AI readiness.” The term appears in reports from MIT Technology Review, McKinsey, Gartner, and a hundred vendors selling integration platforms.
But here’s what I’ve observed over 27 years:
90% of the people using the term “readiness” are getting it wrong.
They don’t know what the term actually means. They’re just slapping it onto the same old technology-first frameworks — the ones that have produced the 80% failure rate for decades.
When I see “readiness” in a vendor report, I ask:
- Readiness for what?
- Measured by whom?
- Against what criteria?
- Defined before or after tool selection?
The answers are almost always the same: readiness means infrastructure. Pipelines. Integration. Data governance (meaning security, not decision governance).
Not once do they measure:
- Decision rights
- Success criteria
- Behavioral alignment
- Exception governance
- Process fit
That’s not readiness. That’s technical capacity dressed in readiness language.
Why I Share the “Why” Publicly
The why is public because it builds awareness of the problem.
When I write about the 80% failure rate, the organizational readiness gap, or the difference between Practitioner A and Practitioner B — I’m naming patterns that most of the industry refuses to acknowledge.
That content:
- Establishes the problem clearly
- Creates recognition among those who’ve lived it
- Filters for practitioners who want to understand, not just execute
- Builds demand from the right people — those oriented toward getting it right
The why is free because understanding the problem is the first step. And frankly, if someone reads the why and doesn’t recognize their own organization in it, they’re not ready for the how anyway.
Why I Gate the “How”
The how is gated because methodology without commitment produces dilution.
If I give away the Hansen Method — the frameworks, the diagnostic tools, the governance structures — here’s what happens:
1. They rebrand it. “Readiness” becomes another line item in a vendor’s marketing deck. The language gets borrowed. The substance gets stripped.
2. They dilute it. The rigor disappears. The uncomfortable questions get softened. The governance requirements get treated as optional.
3. They misapply it. Organizations run a “readiness assessment” as a checkbox exercise, skip the behavioral alignment, deploy anyway — and when it fails, they blame the framework.
4. They never credit it. The monkeys typing at typewriters don’t cite their sources. They just produce more noise that sounds like insight.
I’ve watched this happen with every serious methodology that’s been made freely available. The industry absorbs the language and ignores the discipline.
The Commercial Boundary Is a Quality Filter
Gating the how isn’t gatekeeping. It’s quality control.
The subscription model exists to separate:
- Observers from participants
- Curiosity from commitment
- Those who want to understand from those who want to act
If someone isn’t willing to invest in structured access to the methodology, they’re telling me something important: they want the shortcut, not the discipline.
And shortcuts are exactly how we got to an 80% failure rate in the first place.
The Practitioner A / Practitioner B Distinction
This is why the Practitioner A vs. Practitioner B framework matters.
Practitioner A — the one we work with — is oriented toward getting it right. They ask questions to understand. They wrestle with implications. They’re willing to define “good” before they commit to tools.
Practitioner B — the one we decline — is oriented toward not getting it wrong. They want cover, not clarity. They cite obstacles as conclusions. They prefer the language of readiness without the burden of governance.
Practitioner B wants the how for free — so they can say they considered it, check the box, and proceed with the same approach that’s failed for decades.
Practitioner A understands that the how has value precisely because it requires commitment.
The Bottom Line
I would rather work with fewer practitioners who are serious than educate more practitioners who will nod, agree, and do nothing.
The why is public because awareness precedes action.
The how is gated because methodology without commitment is just noise.
If that filters out 90% of the market — good. The 10% who remain are the ones capable of breaking the pattern.
The Hansen Fit Score measures organizational readiness — not technical capacity. Access to the methodology is available through our subscription model for practitioners ready to move from understanding to action.
Related: Do You Qualify For The Hansen Fit Score?
Related: Madison Avenue ooops . . . make that Gartner, names Oracle as a leader in supply chain planning (2011)
EDITOR’S NOTE: The problem isn’t agentic AI. The problem is rebranding old implementation behavior as inevitability.
-30-
Procurement Insights
Why I Gate the “How” — Not the “Why”
Posted on January 22, 2026
0
I would rather deal with people who are more interested in being right than those who are more fearful of being wrong.
That single distinction explains why the content we share publicly on Procurement Insights focuses on the why, while the gated content focuses on the how.
The Problem With Giving Away the “How”
In 2011, I wrote a post titled Madison Avenue ooops . . . make that Gartner, names Oracle as a leader in supply chain planning. It traced the ownership and funding relationships behind Gartner — from Saatchi & Saatchi (an advertising firm) to Bain Capital to Oracle — and asked a simple question:
Why would an analyst firm praise a vendor with an “atrocious track record” on implementations?
The answer: because their business model rewards positioning, not outcomes.
That pattern hasn’t changed. It’s just wearing new clothes.
“Readiness” Is the New Buzzword
Today, everyone talks about “AI readiness.” The term appears in reports from MIT Technology Review, McKinsey, Gartner, and a hundred vendors selling integration platforms.
But here’s what I’ve observed over 27 years:
90% of the people using the term “readiness” are getting it wrong.
They don’t know what the term actually means. They’re just slapping it onto the same old technology-first frameworks — the ones that have produced the 80% failure rate for decades.
When I see “readiness” in a vendor report, I ask:
The answers are almost always the same: readiness means infrastructure. Pipelines. Integration. Data governance (meaning security, not decision governance).
Not once do they measure:
That’s not readiness. That’s technical capacity dressed in readiness language.
Why I Share the “Why” Publicly
The why is public because it builds awareness of the problem.
When I write about the 80% failure rate, the organizational readiness gap, or the difference between Practitioner A and Practitioner B — I’m naming patterns that most of the industry refuses to acknowledge.
That content:
The why is free because understanding the problem is the first step. And frankly, if someone reads the why and doesn’t recognize their own organization in it, they’re not ready for the how anyway.
Why I Gate the “How”
The how is gated because methodology without commitment produces dilution.
If I give away the Hansen Method — the frameworks, the diagnostic tools, the governance structures — here’s what happens:
1. They rebrand it. “Readiness” becomes another line item in a vendor’s marketing deck. The language gets borrowed. The substance gets stripped.
2. They dilute it. The rigor disappears. The uncomfortable questions get softened. The governance requirements get treated as optional.
3. They misapply it. Organizations run a “readiness assessment” as a checkbox exercise, skip the behavioral alignment, deploy anyway — and when it fails, they blame the framework.
4. They never credit it. The monkeys typing at typewriters don’t cite their sources. They just produce more noise that sounds like insight.
I’ve watched this happen with every serious methodology that’s been made freely available. The industry absorbs the language and ignores the discipline.
The Commercial Boundary Is a Quality Filter
Gating the how isn’t gatekeeping. It’s quality control.
The subscription model exists to separate:
If someone isn’t willing to invest in structured access to the methodology, they’re telling me something important: they want the shortcut, not the discipline.
And shortcuts are exactly how we got to an 80% failure rate in the first place.
The Practitioner A / Practitioner B Distinction
This is why the Practitioner A vs. Practitioner B framework matters.
Practitioner A — the one we work with — is oriented toward getting it right. They ask questions to understand. They wrestle with implications. They’re willing to define “good” before they commit to tools.
Practitioner B — the one we decline — is oriented toward not getting it wrong. They want cover, not clarity. They cite obstacles as conclusions. They prefer the language of readiness without the burden of governance.
Practitioner B wants the how for free — so they can say they considered it, check the box, and proceed with the same approach that’s failed for decades.
Practitioner A understands that the how has value precisely because it requires commitment.
The Bottom Line
I would rather work with fewer practitioners who are serious than educate more practitioners who will nod, agree, and do nothing.
The why is public because awareness precedes action.
The how is gated because methodology without commitment is just noise.
If that filters out 90% of the market — good. The 10% who remain are the ones capable of breaking the pattern.
The Hansen Fit Score measures organizational readiness — not technical capacity. Access to the methodology is available through our subscription model for practitioners ready to move from understanding to action.
Related: Do You Qualify For The Hansen Fit Score?
Related: Madison Avenue ooops . . . make that Gartner, names Oracle as a leader in supply chain planning (2011)
EDITOR’S NOTE: The problem isn’t agentic AI. The problem is rebranding old implementation behavior as inevitability.
-30-
Share this:
Related