By Jon W. Hansen | Procurement Insights
The industry is starting to use the right words. They’re just not using them correctly.
Lately, I’ve been seeing familiar terms everywhere:
Readiness. Adoption gap. Governance. Agentic AI maturity.
Everyone is using them. Almost no one is defining them the same way.
There are now two versions of these concepts in the market:
1. The marketing definition and 2. The operational definition
They sound similar. They lead to very different outcomes.
The Marketing Definition of “Readiness”
In most current frameworks, readiness means:
- Do we have the data?
- Do we have the tools?
- Do we have the architecture?
- Do we have a roadmap?
Readiness becomes another way of saying: “Are we technically prepared to deploy?”
It’s a comforting definition. It’s also why the failure rate hasn’t moved in 30 years.
The Operational Definition of “Readiness”
In practice, readiness means something far more uncomfortable:
- Who has decision rights when systems disagree?
- What does “good” look like before automation executes it?
- How are exceptions governed before they scale?
- What happens when agents diverge?
- Is the organization behaviorally capable of executing what the technology enables?
That’s not a maturity curve. That’s a go/no-go question.
The tell: When a readiness assessment doesn’t include decision rights, incentive alignment, or behavioral factors, it’s using the marketing definition. When it skips Phase 0™, it’s measuring the engine, not the driver.
The Same Problem Is Happening With the “Adoption Gap”
One version of the “gap” says:
“Technology is advancing faster than organizations can absorb it.”
That frames the problem as speed and sophistication.
Another version says:
“Organizations are deploying systems they are not structurally prepared to govern.”
That frames the problem as governance and readiness.
Those are not the same diagnosis. They lead to opposite solutions.
One solution says: Move faster. Architect better. Buy smarter.
The other says: Stop. Measure readiness. Then decide whether to proceed at all.
The tell: When someone says “the gap will close as the market matures,” they’re using the marketing definition. Markets don’t close governance gaps. Readiness does.
And It’s Happening With “Governance”
The marketing definition treats governance as a feature: audit trails, access controls, regulatory compliance. It’s a layer in the architecture diagram — usually labeled “Trust & Evaluation” — that ensures outputs are logged and explainable.
The operational definition treats governance as a discipline: someone decides which agents exist, what they’re allowed to do, and what happens when they disagree. It’s not a logging function. It’s an operational function — active, continuous, and human-directed.
The tell: When governance appears in an architecture diagram but not in an operating model, it’s decoration. When no one can answer “what happens when two agents produce conflicting outputs?” — there is no governance. There’s just compliance theater.
Why This Happens
The pattern isn’t malicious. It’s structural.
Vendors sell technology. They need “readiness” to mean something technology can satisfy.
Consultancies sell implementations. They need “gaps” to mean something implementations can close.
Analyst firms sell research. They need “governance” to mean something their frameworks can describe.
None of these business models benefit from definitions that place accountability on organizational factors they can’t control.
So the words get adopted. And the meanings get hollowed out.
This is how serious concepts turn into slogans.
Why This Matters Now
Agentic AI changes where humans sit in the system.
The human no longer approves every transaction. The human governs the agent ecosystem.
That requires:
- defined decision rights
- convergence rules
- exception protocols
- activation and deactivation logic
- accountability before autonomy
If those aren’t defined first, AI doesn’t create intelligence. It automates dysfunction.
Calling that “readiness” doesn’t make it so.
The Test of a Real Definition
Here’s the simplest test I know:
If your definition of readiness does not allow you to stop a bad decision before technology is deployed, it’s not readiness. It’s justification.
If your definition of governance does not change who decides what when systems disagree, it’s not governance. It’s documentation.
If your definition of an adoption gap does not explain why 70–80% of initiatives still fail, it’s not a diagnosis. It’s a diagram.
How to Tell the Difference
When you hear these words, ask one question:
“Who is accountable when this fails?”
If the answer is “the market,” “the technology,” or “the maturity curve” — you’re hearing the marketing definition.
If the answer is “the organization that didn’t assess whether it was ready to govern what it bought” — you’re hearing the operational one.
Real Definitions Change Behavior
Operational definitions force different actions:
- Assess before selecting
- Govern before automating
- Converge before executing
- Measure before scaling
Marketing definitions decorate the same behavior with new language.
That’s the difference.
The Bottom Line
The industry doesn’t suffer from a lack of frameworks. It suffers from a lack of shared meaning.
Until readiness means organizational capability, not technical preparation… Until governance means decision authority, not oversight… Until the “gap” means structural mismatch, not adoption lag…
We will keep renaming the same failure.
Words don’t change outcomes. Definitions do.
And the difference between a definition and a slogan is whether it can stop you from making a bad decision.
the
The methodology for assessing operational readiness — including Phase 0™ diagnostics and Hansen Fit Score™ criteria — is available to subscribers.
-30-
Procurement Insights
When Words Lose Meaning: Why Definitions Matter More Than Frameworks
Posted on January 24, 2026
0
By Jon W. Hansen | Procurement Insights
The industry is starting to use the right words. They’re just not using them correctly.
Lately, I’ve been seeing familiar terms everywhere:
Readiness. Adoption gap. Governance. Agentic AI maturity.
Everyone is using them. Almost no one is defining them the same way.
There are now two versions of these concepts in the market:
1. The marketing definition and 2. The operational definition
They sound similar. They lead to very different outcomes.
The Marketing Definition of “Readiness”
In most current frameworks, readiness means:
Readiness becomes another way of saying: “Are we technically prepared to deploy?”
It’s a comforting definition. It’s also why the failure rate hasn’t moved in 30 years.
The Operational Definition of “Readiness”
In practice, readiness means something far more uncomfortable:
That’s not a maturity curve. That’s a go/no-go question.
The tell: When a readiness assessment doesn’t include decision rights, incentive alignment, or behavioral factors, it’s using the marketing definition. When it skips Phase 0™, it’s measuring the engine, not the driver.
The Same Problem Is Happening With the “Adoption Gap”
One version of the “gap” says:
That frames the problem as speed and sophistication.
Another version says:
That frames the problem as governance and readiness.
Those are not the same diagnosis. They lead to opposite solutions.
One solution says: Move faster. Architect better. Buy smarter.
The other says: Stop. Measure readiness. Then decide whether to proceed at all.
The tell: When someone says “the gap will close as the market matures,” they’re using the marketing definition. Markets don’t close governance gaps. Readiness does.
And It’s Happening With “Governance”
The marketing definition treats governance as a feature: audit trails, access controls, regulatory compliance. It’s a layer in the architecture diagram — usually labeled “Trust & Evaluation” — that ensures outputs are logged and explainable.
The operational definition treats governance as a discipline: someone decides which agents exist, what they’re allowed to do, and what happens when they disagree. It’s not a logging function. It’s an operational function — active, continuous, and human-directed.
The tell: When governance appears in an architecture diagram but not in an operating model, it’s decoration. When no one can answer “what happens when two agents produce conflicting outputs?” — there is no governance. There’s just compliance theater.
Why This Happens
The pattern isn’t malicious. It’s structural.
Vendors sell technology. They need “readiness” to mean something technology can satisfy.
Consultancies sell implementations. They need “gaps” to mean something implementations can close.
Analyst firms sell research. They need “governance” to mean something their frameworks can describe.
None of these business models benefit from definitions that place accountability on organizational factors they can’t control.
So the words get adopted. And the meanings get hollowed out.
This is how serious concepts turn into slogans.
Why This Matters Now
Agentic AI changes where humans sit in the system.
The human no longer approves every transaction. The human governs the agent ecosystem.
That requires:
If those aren’t defined first, AI doesn’t create intelligence. It automates dysfunction.
Calling that “readiness” doesn’t make it so.
The Test of a Real Definition
Here’s the simplest test I know:
If your definition of readiness does not allow you to stop a bad decision before technology is deployed, it’s not readiness. It’s justification.
If your definition of governance does not change who decides what when systems disagree, it’s not governance. It’s documentation.
If your definition of an adoption gap does not explain why 70–80% of initiatives still fail, it’s not a diagnosis. It’s a diagram.
How to Tell the Difference
When you hear these words, ask one question:
“Who is accountable when this fails?”
If the answer is “the market,” “the technology,” or “the maturity curve” — you’re hearing the marketing definition.
If the answer is “the organization that didn’t assess whether it was ready to govern what it bought” — you’re hearing the operational one.
Real Definitions Change Behavior
Operational definitions force different actions:
Marketing definitions decorate the same behavior with new language.
That’s the difference.
The Bottom Line
The industry doesn’t suffer from a lack of frameworks. It suffers from a lack of shared meaning.
Until readiness means organizational capability, not technical preparation… Until governance means decision authority, not oversight… Until the “gap” means structural mismatch, not adoption lag…
We will keep renaming the same failure.
Words don’t change outcomes. Definitions do.
And the difference between a definition and a slogan is whether it can stop you from making a bad decision.
the
The methodology for assessing operational readiness — including Phase 0™ diagnostics and Hansen Fit Score™ criteria — is available to subscribers.
-30-
Share this:
Related