By Jon W. Hansen | Procurement Insights
Two Gartner graphics showed up in my LinkedIn feed today through paid promotion campaigns. They caught my attention in a way I couldn’t immediately articulate — so I did what I do. I ran them through a full RAM 2025™ multimodel analysis across five independent AI models to find out what my instinct was responding to.
The consensus was unanimous. Every model identified the same structural shift.
What Gartner Published
The first graphic is a “You Are Here” positioning system that, for the first time, visually separates AI readiness from human readiness — showing four possible states, including organizations that are AI-ready but human-unready. The second is an “AI Adoption Gap” chart showing provider innovation accelerating upward while customer outcomes lag behind, with the widening distance between them shaded and labeled.
If you have followed my work, you already know what that gap represents. If you haven’t — that gap is the reason 50–80% of technology implementations fail, and it is the central finding of the Hansen Fit Score™ methodology I have developed and updated since 1998.
The Same Observation. Eight Days Apart.
On February 14th, I published “The Inheritance Problem” — a graphic documenting that technology capability has grown exponentially since 2008 while the implementation failure rate has remained fixed at 50–80% and the educational boundary has not moved. It quantifies the failure rate, identifies the amplification zone where AI inherits what the curriculum never corrected, and traces the divergence across five technology eras from Manual/ERP through Agentic AI.
Eight days later, Gartner published “The AI Adoption Gap” — a graphic showing the same structural divergence: provider innovation accelerating while customer outcomes lag behind, with a widening shaded region between them.
The Five-Model Consensus
Across all five models in the RAM 2025™ analysis, three findings emerged with complete alignment.
Finding 1: The Industry Admission
Gartner is now visualizing the problem I have been measuring for 27 years.
The “You Are Here” graphic implicitly concedes that technology capability does not equal value realization — and that organizational readiness is a separate variable. That is Phase 0 logic, whether they call it that or not. It is the first time Gartner’s visual language has acknowledged what the Procurement Insights archive has documented across 3,386 posts since 2007: you can have advanced capability and still be unable to realize value from it.
The “AI Adoption Gap” chart goes further. It is a structural failure statement presented as a market observation. Supply is outpacing the system’s ability to absorb it. Every model flagged this as aligning directly with the Authority Paradox quantified in our Gartner Consolidated Assessment Report — a 4.8-point gap between Technology Capability (8.8) and Service Delivery Capacity (4.0).
After 20+ years, the dominant advisory model now concedes what the evidence has shown since 1998: technology capability does not equal value realization, the adoption gap is widening, and readiness is the constraint. But observation is not measurement. Acknowledging the gap is not closing it.
Finding 2: Observation vs. Gating — The Critical Distinction
So who actually measures it?
This is where the models converged most tightly. Gartner observes readiness states. It does not operationalize them. It describes the adoption gap. It does not quantify failure probability. It shows where you are. It does not decide whether you should proceed.
One model put it in terms I found particularly precise: Gartner is simultaneously running a “Vendor Race” graphic — the traditional model of ranking who is winning — alongside the Adoption Gap graphic, which implicitly admits that winning the race does not predict outcomes. One hand sells the race. The other hand admits the race does not predict success. Neither hand connects the two.
That pattern has a name in our framework. We call it Certainty Theater.
The Hansen Fit Score™ does something structurally different. It does not just map where you are. It measures whether you should proceed, quantifies the probability of success, and gates the decision when readiness is missing. Gartner’s business model cannot say “stop” — because telling a $6.3 billion subscriber base not to proceed would undermine the revenue structure. The Hansen Method™ can say stop, because our value proposition is tied to practitioner outcomes, not subscription renewals.
The chart in the graphic above tells this story with data. Every major advisory firm scores above 7.0 on Technology Capability — market observation, vendor categorization, trend identification. None score above 5.5 on Service Delivery Capacity — the measure of whether their guidance translates to practitioner implementation success. That distance is the Authority Paradox, and it is the gap that none of these firms — including Gartner — have publicly addressed.
Finding 3: Defensive Shift, Not Progressive Evolution
Multiple models identified the same pattern: these graphics are softer, less authoritative, and more “coach-like” than traditional Gartner outputs. That shift is not an evolution. It is a defensive adaptation to the growing visibility of AI failure rates, regulatory pressure from the EU AI Act, board-level scrutiny of technology investments, and the simple mathematical reality that the advisory model has not moved the failure baseline in over two decades.
One model flagged something the others missed — the timing. Both graphics were pushed through paid LinkedIn campaigns in the same window as our “Scoring the Scorers” assessment series. Practitioners are seeing Gartner’s implicit admission of the readiness problem and our quantified measurement of it in the same feed, on the same day. The juxtaposition is doing positioning work that no amount of marketing could replicate.
Why This Is Not Reproducible in 60 Days
As the bottom panel of the graphic illustrates, the evidence base behind the Hansen Fit Score™ is not something that can be assembled quickly or replicated by repackaging someone else’s framework:
27-Year Receipts. The Procurement Insights archive contains 3,386 posts spanning 2007 to 2026, including 391 documenting Gartner’s specific influence on procurement technology outcomes. The RAM SR&ED research dates to 1998. That is nearly three decades of independently verified, longitudinal documentation — the only evidence base of its kind in the industry.
Documented Predictive Tracking. SAP implementation failures predicted 7–17 years before industry recognition. The COVID-era implementation success spike identified and explained before any other analyst. Pattern documentation that has been validated across multiple technology cycles, leadership changes, and framework evolutions.
Scoring the Scorers. The first independent assessment of the advisory ecosystem itself — applying the same outcome-measurement methodology to the firms that have historically been exempt from the scrutiny they apply to vendors.
Outcome Validation. The Hansen Method™ documents 85–97% implementation success rates against a 20–35% industry baseline. That is not a positioning claim. It is a measured result, and the gap between those numbers is why the methodology exists.
That evidence base is not reproducible in 60 days. It is the reason these scores are defensible and the reason the assessment series exists.
What This Means
Gartner is moving from selling answers to selling questions. That is a retreat from the certainty that built a $6.3 billion business. It is also — and I want to be precise about this — a step in the right direction.
I have said throughout the “Scoring the Scorers” series that Gartner performs a genuine market function. Market taxonomy, vendor categorization, trend identification — these are real strengths, and the Technology Capability score of 8.8 in our assessment reflects that. The issue has never been whether Gartner provides value. It is whether that value extends to measurable improvement in implementation outcomes.
These graphics suggest that Gartner is beginning to ask the right question. They are not yet answering it — because answering it requires outcome measurement, decision gating, and the willingness to tell clients not to proceed when readiness is absent.
That is what Phase 0 does. That is what the Hansen Fit Score™ measures. That is the gap between orientation and control.
Gartner is now visualizing the readiness problem. The Hansen Fit Score™ measures it, gates it, and decides whether the initiative should proceed at all.
I would rather get it right than be right. And right now, the evidence — including Gartner’s own evidence — says the readiness question is the one that matters.
The Gartner Consolidated Assessment Report is available now through the Hansen Models™ All-Access subscription ($3,000 US/year) https://payhip.com/hansenmodels or as a single report ($1,750 US) https://payhip.com/b/PoYA9.
RAM 2025™ multimodel validation across Models 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6, Level 3 of 5.
-30-
Procurement Insights
When the Dominant Advisory Firm Starts Asking Your Question
Posted on February 22, 2026
0
By Jon W. Hansen | Procurement Insights
Two Gartner graphics showed up in my LinkedIn feed today through paid promotion campaigns. They caught my attention in a way I couldn’t immediately articulate — so I did what I do. I ran them through a full RAM 2025™ multimodel analysis across five independent AI models to find out what my instinct was responding to.
The consensus was unanimous. Every model identified the same structural shift.
What Gartner Published
The first graphic is a “You Are Here” positioning system that, for the first time, visually separates AI readiness from human readiness — showing four possible states, including organizations that are AI-ready but human-unready. The second is an “AI Adoption Gap” chart showing provider innovation accelerating upward while customer outcomes lag behind, with the widening distance between them shaded and labeled.
If you have followed my work, you already know what that gap represents. If you haven’t — that gap is the reason 50–80% of technology implementations fail, and it is the central finding of the Hansen Fit Score™ methodology I have developed and updated since 1998.
The Same Observation. Eight Days Apart.
On February 14th, I published “The Inheritance Problem” — a graphic documenting that technology capability has grown exponentially since 2008 while the implementation failure rate has remained fixed at 50–80% and the educational boundary has not moved. It quantifies the failure rate, identifies the amplification zone where AI inherits what the curriculum never corrected, and traces the divergence across five technology eras from Manual/ERP through Agentic AI.
Eight days later, Gartner published “The AI Adoption Gap” — a graphic showing the same structural divergence: provider innovation accelerating while customer outcomes lag behind, with a widening shaded region between them.
The Five-Model Consensus
Across all five models in the RAM 2025™ analysis, three findings emerged with complete alignment.
Finding 1: The Industry Admission
Gartner is now visualizing the problem I have been measuring for 27 years.
The “You Are Here” graphic implicitly concedes that technology capability does not equal value realization — and that organizational readiness is a separate variable. That is Phase 0 logic, whether they call it that or not. It is the first time Gartner’s visual language has acknowledged what the Procurement Insights archive has documented across 3,386 posts since 2007: you can have advanced capability and still be unable to realize value from it.
The “AI Adoption Gap” chart goes further. It is a structural failure statement presented as a market observation. Supply is outpacing the system’s ability to absorb it. Every model flagged this as aligning directly with the Authority Paradox quantified in our Gartner Consolidated Assessment Report — a 4.8-point gap between Technology Capability (8.8) and Service Delivery Capacity (4.0).
After 20+ years, the dominant advisory model now concedes what the evidence has shown since 1998: technology capability does not equal value realization, the adoption gap is widening, and readiness is the constraint. But observation is not measurement. Acknowledging the gap is not closing it.
Finding 2: Observation vs. Gating — The Critical Distinction
So who actually measures it?
This is where the models converged most tightly. Gartner observes readiness states. It does not operationalize them. It describes the adoption gap. It does not quantify failure probability. It shows where you are. It does not decide whether you should proceed.
One model put it in terms I found particularly precise: Gartner is simultaneously running a “Vendor Race” graphic — the traditional model of ranking who is winning — alongside the Adoption Gap graphic, which implicitly admits that winning the race does not predict outcomes. One hand sells the race. The other hand admits the race does not predict success. Neither hand connects the two.
That pattern has a name in our framework. We call it Certainty Theater.
The Hansen Fit Score™ does something structurally different. It does not just map where you are. It measures whether you should proceed, quantifies the probability of success, and gates the decision when readiness is missing. Gartner’s business model cannot say “stop” — because telling a $6.3 billion subscriber base not to proceed would undermine the revenue structure. The Hansen Method™ can say stop, because our value proposition is tied to practitioner outcomes, not subscription renewals.
The chart in the graphic above tells this story with data. Every major advisory firm scores above 7.0 on Technology Capability — market observation, vendor categorization, trend identification. None score above 5.5 on Service Delivery Capacity — the measure of whether their guidance translates to practitioner implementation success. That distance is the Authority Paradox, and it is the gap that none of these firms — including Gartner — have publicly addressed.
Finding 3: Defensive Shift, Not Progressive Evolution
Multiple models identified the same pattern: these graphics are softer, less authoritative, and more “coach-like” than traditional Gartner outputs. That shift is not an evolution. It is a defensive adaptation to the growing visibility of AI failure rates, regulatory pressure from the EU AI Act, board-level scrutiny of technology investments, and the simple mathematical reality that the advisory model has not moved the failure baseline in over two decades.
One model flagged something the others missed — the timing. Both graphics were pushed through paid LinkedIn campaigns in the same window as our “Scoring the Scorers” assessment series. Practitioners are seeing Gartner’s implicit admission of the readiness problem and our quantified measurement of it in the same feed, on the same day. The juxtaposition is doing positioning work that no amount of marketing could replicate.
Why This Is Not Reproducible in 60 Days
As the bottom panel of the graphic illustrates, the evidence base behind the Hansen Fit Score™ is not something that can be assembled quickly or replicated by repackaging someone else’s framework:
27-Year Receipts. The Procurement Insights archive contains 3,386 posts spanning 2007 to 2026, including 391 documenting Gartner’s specific influence on procurement technology outcomes. The RAM SR&ED research dates to 1998. That is nearly three decades of independently verified, longitudinal documentation — the only evidence base of its kind in the industry.
Documented Predictive Tracking. SAP implementation failures predicted 7–17 years before industry recognition. The COVID-era implementation success spike identified and explained before any other analyst. Pattern documentation that has been validated across multiple technology cycles, leadership changes, and framework evolutions.
Scoring the Scorers. The first independent assessment of the advisory ecosystem itself — applying the same outcome-measurement methodology to the firms that have historically been exempt from the scrutiny they apply to vendors.
Outcome Validation. The Hansen Method™ documents 85–97% implementation success rates against a 20–35% industry baseline. That is not a positioning claim. It is a measured result, and the gap between those numbers is why the methodology exists.
That evidence base is not reproducible in 60 days. It is the reason these scores are defensible and the reason the assessment series exists.
What This Means
Gartner is moving from selling answers to selling questions. That is a retreat from the certainty that built a $6.3 billion business. It is also — and I want to be precise about this — a step in the right direction.
I have said throughout the “Scoring the Scorers” series that Gartner performs a genuine market function. Market taxonomy, vendor categorization, trend identification — these are real strengths, and the Technology Capability score of 8.8 in our assessment reflects that. The issue has never been whether Gartner provides value. It is whether that value extends to measurable improvement in implementation outcomes.
These graphics suggest that Gartner is beginning to ask the right question. They are not yet answering it — because answering it requires outcome measurement, decision gating, and the willingness to tell clients not to proceed when readiness is absent.
That is what Phase 0 does. That is what the Hansen Fit Score™ measures. That is the gap between orientation and control.
Gartner is now visualizing the readiness problem. The Hansen Fit Score™ measures it, gates it, and decides whether the initiative should proceed at all.
I would rather get it right than be right. And right now, the evidence — including Gartner’s own evidence — says the readiness question is the one that matters.
The Gartner Consolidated Assessment Report is available now through the Hansen Models™ All-Access subscription ($3,000 US/year) https://payhip.com/hansenmodels or as a single report ($1,750 US) https://payhip.com/b/PoYA9.
RAM 2025™ multimodel validation across Models 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6, Level 3 of 5.
-30-
Share this:
Related