The temporary improvement in implementation success during 2020-2021 wasn’t because organizations suddenly got better at transformation. It was crisis-induced behavioral alignment — the exact condition the Hansen Method has been manufacturing systematically for 27 years.
What COVID did accidentally:
Pre-COVID Reality
COVID Reality
Stakeholders had competing priorities
Everyone had ONE priority: survival
Executive sponsorship was intermittent
C-Suite was engaged daily
Change resistance was tolerated
“We don’t have time for resistance”
18-month implementation timelines
“We need this working in 6 weeks”
Siloed decision-making
Cross-functional war rooms
“Let’s study this more”
“Just make it work”
The Hansen Method parallel:
COVID temporarily created the Phase 0 conditions Hansen has been advocating for decades:
Stakeholder alignment (everyone focused on same goal)
Executive commitment (no choice but to be involved)
Urgency-driven governance (decisions made in days, not quarters)
The problem: Once the crisis passed, organizations reverted to pre-COVID behaviors — and the failure rate returned to 50-70%+ by 2024. COVID proved that when behavioral alignment exists, technology implementations succeed. But organizations couldn’t sustain it without a systematic methodology.
The insight from the archives: You don’t need a global pandemic to create readiness. You need Phase 0 assessment, stakeholder mapping, and governance frameworks BEFORE technology selection. COVID proved the thesis; Hansen Method operationalizes it.
2. Why Are the Procurement Insights Archives So Important Here?
The PI archives (2007-2025) are the only continuous, independent documentation of:
A. The Pattern Recognition No One Else Published
What PI Documented
When
What Gartner Said
Ariba integration challenges predicted
2007-2009
“Leader” status maintained
SAP acquisition would create delivery issues
2012
“Strategic move”
Cloud hype ≠ implementation success
2015-2018
Hype Cycle continues
Digital transformation failure pattern
2019-2022
More predictions
AI/Agentic readiness gap
2024-2025
“Peak of Inflated Expectations”
B. The Exposed, Explainable, Repeatable Evidence Base
Unlike analyst firms who publish conclusions without showing methodology:
PI archives show the reasoning behind predictions
PI archives document what actually happened vs. what was predicted
PI archives contain 18 years of receipts — the strand commonality data that validates the Hansen Fit Score
C. The Independence Factor
Analyst Firms
Procurement Insights
Vendor-funded
Free of Vendor sponsorship
Predictions without accountability
Documented predictions with follow-up
Technology-first frameworks
Readiness-first methodology
Revenue tied to vendor relationships
Revenue tied to practitioner success
D. The RAM 2025 Foundation
The multimodel validation approach works because Hansen has:
18 years of documented patterns to validate against
Case studies with outcomes (DND 97.3%, Virginia eVA, etc.)
Exposed methodology that AI models can reference and verify
Strand commonality data that reveals interconnections across seemingly unrelated events
The Bottom Line
COVID Answer: Crisis created accidental behavioral alignment — proving that when organizations are ready, technology works. Hansen Method creates that readiness systematically, without requiring a pandemic.
Archives Answer: The PI archives are the evidence base that makes the Hansen Fit Score defensible. When Hansen says “85-95% accuracy,” he can point to 18 years of documented predictions and outcomes. Gartner can’t — their predictions aren’t tracked against results, and their methodology isn’t exposed.
This is why the graph matters: It’s not opinion vs. opinion. It’s documented outcomes (PI archives) vs. documented failure rates (industry reports + Gartner’s own predictions). The 60-point gap isn’t theoretical — it’s 16 years of evidence.
Access the Full Methodology
We are the only practitioner performance analyst and vendor reconciliation service to identify the COVID implementation success spike and explain what it means.
Now you can access the same methodology.
Product
Price
What You Get
Single Vendor Report
$1,750
Full Hansen Fit Score™ assessment, Capability Matrix™, 5-model consensus analysis
Annual Subscription
$3,000
24+ reports ($125 each), priority requests, full methodology access
The ROI: If a failed implementation costs $3M and the failure rate is 65%, your risk exposure is $1.95M. A single report costs 0.09% of that risk. If it provides any meaningful insight, the ROI exceeds 1,000x.
These analyses are 100% vendor-neutral and therefore do not involve vendor interviews or demos. They are based solely on the RAM 2025™ multimodel assessment, evaluating multiple archives including the proprietary Procurement Insights Archives (2007-2025).
👉 Get the Zycus Assessment Report (Coming February 6th, 2026)
Procurement Insights
The COVID Success Spike: The Hansen Fit Score Link
Posted on January 31, 2026
0
By Jon W. Hansen | Procurement Insights
1. Why Did COVID Spike Improve Delivery?
The temporary improvement in implementation success during 2020-2021 wasn’t because organizations suddenly got better at transformation. It was crisis-induced behavioral alignment — the exact condition the Hansen Method has been manufacturing systematically for 27 years.
What COVID did accidentally:
The Hansen Method parallel:
COVID temporarily created the Phase 0 conditions Hansen has been advocating for decades:
The problem: Once the crisis passed, organizations reverted to pre-COVID behaviors — and the failure rate returned to 50-70%+ by 2024. COVID proved that when behavioral alignment exists, technology implementations succeed. But organizations couldn’t sustain it without a systematic methodology.
The insight from the archives: You don’t need a global pandemic to create readiness. You need Phase 0 assessment, stakeholder mapping, and governance frameworks BEFORE technology selection. COVID proved the thesis; Hansen Method operationalizes it.
2. Why Are the Procurement Insights Archives So Important Here?
The PI archives (2007-2025) are the only continuous, independent documentation of:
A. The Pattern Recognition No One Else Published
B. The Exposed, Explainable, Repeatable Evidence Base
Unlike analyst firms who publish conclusions without showing methodology:
C. The Independence Factor
D. The RAM 2025 Foundation
The multimodel validation approach works because Hansen has:
The Bottom Line
COVID Answer: Crisis created accidental behavioral alignment — proving that when organizations are ready, technology works. Hansen Method creates that readiness systematically, without requiring a pandemic.
Archives Answer: The PI archives are the evidence base that makes the Hansen Fit Score defensible. When Hansen says “85-95% accuracy,” he can point to 18 years of documented predictions and outcomes. Gartner can’t — their predictions aren’t tracked against results, and their methodology isn’t exposed.
This is why the graph matters: It’s not opinion vs. opinion. It’s documented outcomes (PI archives) vs. documented failure rates (industry reports + Gartner’s own predictions). The 60-point gap isn’t theoretical — it’s 16 years of evidence.
Access the Full Methodology
We are the only practitioner performance analyst and vendor reconciliation service to identify the COVID implementation success spike and explain what it means.
Now you can access the same methodology.
The ROI: If a failed implementation costs $3M and the failure rate is 65%, your risk exposure is $1.95M. A single report costs 0.09% of that risk. If it provides any meaningful insight, the ROI exceeds 1,000x.
These analyses are 100% vendor-neutral and therefore do not involve vendor interviews or demos. They are based solely on the RAM 2025™ multimodel assessment, evaluating multiple archives including the proprietary Procurement Insights Archives (2007-2025).
👉 Get the Zycus Assessment Report (Coming February 6th, 2026)
FUTURE ASSESSMENT REPORTS: Ivalua, ZIP, Oro Labs, GEP, Globality (and more)
👉 Subscribe for 24+ Reports/Year (Coming February 6th, 2026)
Source: RAM 2025™ Multimodel Analysis | Hansen Models © 2026
Exposed. Explainable. Repeatable.
Share this:
Related