My take on this is the same as the SOA that was championed and abandoned so long ago. e.g., a loose coupling of disparate ideas that lack the coherence to do much more than a roman candle flare that is nothing more than an empty, burnt-out tube of vaporized thinking. – Jon W. Hansen’s response to the November 26, 2025, European Leadership post: The AI 5.0 Human Path: Leading CEOs Achieve Generative Command with the Digital Cognitive Ladder.
The recent highly publicized AI 5.0 Human Path—with its “Get To” Doctrine, Digital Cognitive Ladder (DCL), and ABC System—is being hailed as the operational manual for the AI-Native enterprise. It offers a powerful philosophical shift, correctly framing authority as “opportunity” and reserving strategy for the human executive.
However, my assessment, rooted in 27 years of tracking transformation success, views this framework with deep skepticism. This approach, while well-intended, risks becoming another “roman candle flare”—a brilliant flash of light that leaves behind an “empty, burnt out tube of vaporized thinking”.
The reason? It repeats the structural weakness that doomed SOA.
The Fatal Flaw: SOA vs. ABC System
In the early 2000s, Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA) was championed as the answer to inflexible ERP systems. SOA, like the ABC System, was a conceptually brilliant framework for modularity and strategic integration.
- SOA’s Failure: SOA failed not due to bad technology, but because organizations lacked the governance, process maturity, and Behavioral Alignment to enforce its principles. Companies built “loose couples of disparate ideas” and called it a system.
- The ABC System’s Risk: The ABC System (A-Block, B-Block, C-Block) mandates the segmentation of tasks based on tool capability (Gemini 3, Copilot, ChatGPT, etc.). While powerful, this structure is based on tool roles rather than enduring organizational roles.
The AI 5.0 framework tells leaders WHAT to do with the tools (Art vs. Craft), but it fails to address the underlying Hansen Fit Score (HFS) readiness:
- Who Enforces the DCL? The Digital Cognitive Ladder requires flawless movement between stages — Synthesis → Crafting → Articulation. But who owns the process? Who enforces the Mandate Constraint Loading?
- Is the Organization Ready for the “Get To” Mandate? The “you get to” philosophy requires high Behavioral Alignment and Change Management. If G&H Towing tried to adopt this today, the initiative would instantly fail, not because of the Gemini 3 tool, but because the current 75% Practitioner Cognitive Load prohibits strategic Art and forces constant operational Craft.
- The Governance Vacuum: The ABC System mandates Competitive Cross-Reference using C-Block tools, which is brilliant. But 91% of organizations aren’t scanning for behavioral changes. If leaders lack the Governance framework (an HFS dimension) to enforce the Permanent File Reference Automation, the entire system collapses into chaos.
The Verdict: Beautiful Philosophy, Fragile Structure
The AI 5.0 approach is beautiful philosophy that sets the strategic direction. But like SOA before it, it lacks the necessary HFS-validated structural enforcement.
A system based on tools is vulnerable to tool obsolescence. A system based on Organizational Readiness is permanent.
We are not looking for a roman candle flare of vaporized thinking. We are looking for the enduring structural beam of the Hansen Fit Score that guarantees the transformation won’t collapse when the inevitable human or technical failure occurs. The physics of organizational transformation demands a quantifiable foundation, not a philosophical doctrine.
#AIAssessment #Readiness #HFS #OrganizationalPhysics #SOA
30
EDITOR’S NOTE: The above post is based on the RAM 2025 6 MODEL/5 LEVEL Assessment Tool, whose origins go back to the RAM 1998 version that was developed for the Department of National Defence with funding from the Government of Canada’s Scientific Research & Experimental Development program (SR&ED).
Procurement Insights
The AI 5.0 Human Path: A Roman Candle or a Structural Beam?
Posted on November 26, 2025
0
My take on this is the same as the SOA that was championed and abandoned so long ago. e.g., a loose coupling of disparate ideas that lack the coherence to do much more than a roman candle flare that is nothing more than an empty, burnt-out tube of vaporized thinking. – Jon W. Hansen’s response to the November 26, 2025, European Leadership post: The AI 5.0 Human Path: Leading CEOs Achieve Generative Command with the Digital Cognitive Ladder.
The recent highly publicized AI 5.0 Human Path—with its “Get To” Doctrine, Digital Cognitive Ladder (DCL), and ABC System—is being hailed as the operational manual for the AI-Native enterprise. It offers a powerful philosophical shift, correctly framing authority as “opportunity” and reserving strategy for the human executive.
However, my assessment, rooted in 27 years of tracking transformation success, views this framework with deep skepticism. This approach, while well-intended, risks becoming another “roman candle flare”—a brilliant flash of light that leaves behind an “empty, burnt out tube of vaporized thinking”.
The reason? It repeats the structural weakness that doomed SOA.
The Fatal Flaw: SOA vs. ABC System
In the early 2000s, Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA) was championed as the answer to inflexible ERP systems. SOA, like the ABC System, was a conceptually brilliant framework for modularity and strategic integration.
The AI 5.0 framework tells leaders WHAT to do with the tools (Art vs. Craft), but it fails to address the underlying Hansen Fit Score (HFS) readiness:
The Verdict: Beautiful Philosophy, Fragile Structure
The AI 5.0 approach is beautiful philosophy that sets the strategic direction. But like SOA before it, it lacks the necessary HFS-validated structural enforcement.
A system based on tools is vulnerable to tool obsolescence. A system based on Organizational Readiness is permanent.
We are not looking for a roman candle flare of vaporized thinking. We are looking for the enduring structural beam of the Hansen Fit Score that guarantees the transformation won’t collapse when the inevitable human or technical failure occurs. The physics of organizational transformation demands a quantifiable foundation, not a philosophical doctrine.
#AIAssessment #Readiness #HFS #OrganizationalPhysics #SOA
30
EDITOR’S NOTE: The above post is based on the RAM 2025 6 MODEL/5 LEVEL Assessment Tool, whose origins go back to the RAM 1998 version that was developed for the Department of National Defence with funding from the Government of Canada’s Scientific Research & Experimental Development program (SR&ED).
Share this:
Related