The Curse That Never Goes Away
In Greek mythology, Cassandra was given the gift of accurate prophecy — and the curse that no one would ever believe her. She warned the Trojans not to bring the wooden horse inside the gates. They ignored her. Troy fell.
For 27 years, I’ve felt uncomfortably close to that story.
1998 — The Data Was Clear, But the Industry Wasn’t Ready
In 1998, I completed SR&ED-funded research for Canada’s Department of National Defence.
We achieved 97.3% accuracy in predicting procurement outcomes.
The finding was simple:
Technology does not determine transformation success.
Organizational readiness does.
I published a paper titled “Technology’s Diminishing Role in an Emerging Process-Driven World.”
The industry didn’t want to hear it. Vendors were selling tools. Analysts were validating tools. Consultants were implementing tools.
The message that the tools weren’t the root problem didn’t fit the commercial model.
I was Cassandra. The data was right. The timing was wrong.
Seven Technology Eras — One Failure Rate
Across 27 years, the same pattern repeated:
- ERP Era (late 1990s) — 80% failure
- E-Sourcing (early 2000s) — 80% failure
- Suites (mid-2000s) — 80% failure
- Cloud/SaaS (2010s) — 80% failure
- Analytics & BI (late 2010s) — 80% failure
- Predictive & GenAI (2020s) — 80% failure
- Agentic AI / Orchestration (2025) — projected: TBD, but predictable
The technology changed every few years.
The implementation success rate did not.
Because the technology was never the bottleneck.
Gleicher’s Formula Explains Why
Back in the 1960s, David Gleicher developed a formula that describes why organizational change succeeds or fails:
D × V × F > R
Where:
- D = dissatisfaction with the current state
- V = vision of a better future
- F = first concrete steps
- R = resistance to change
All three (D, V, F) must be strong enough to overcome R.
This formula explains every failed transformation I’ve witnessed — and why Cassandra goes unheard.
The Collision: Cassandra Meets Gleicher
Here’s what happens in every organization that proceeds when it shouldn’t:
- The Dissatisfaction isn’t acute enough.
The pain is real but tolerable. “80% failure” sounds like an industry statistic — until your project becomes one of them.
- The Vision isn’t clear enough.
“Readiness” sounds soft. Leaders want tools, not behavioral and structural diagnostics.
- The First Steps aren’t concrete enough.
Everyone agrees readiness matters… but no one knows how to measure it or what threshold is required.
And so Resistance wins.
The initiative moves forward.
The Cassandra gets labeled “negative” or “not aligned.”
The wooden horse rolls through the gate.
Eighteen months later, the project fails — and the cycle begins again.
The Loneliness of Being Right Too Early
For most of my career, I saw patterns others didn’t.
Not because I was smarter — but because I had the data.
But the incentives in this industry have always rewarded technology adoption, not readiness assessment:
- Vendors get paid when projects start.
- Analysts get paid by vendors.
- Consultants get paid when implementations begin.
- Nobody gets paid to say:
“You are not ready. Do not proceed.”
Being Cassandra isn’t about being ignored.
It’s about telling the truth before the industry has the will to hear it.
Why 2025 Is Different
After two decades of hype cycles, something finally shifted:
- Hackett: Only 2% of organizations exceed transformation expectations; the other 98% stall on readiness, not technology.
- Gartner: 84% don’t measure AI accuracy; 91% aren’t tracking skill shifts; human readiness is the bottleneck.
- McKinsey: GenAI only pays off when companies perform “deeper organizational surgery.”
Suddenly:
- Dissatisfaction is rising.
- Vision is clarifying.
- The industry is finally acknowledging what the data proved in 1998.
What’s still missing?
Concrete First Steps.
Concrete Steps Break the Curse
This is why I created the Hansen Fit Score (HFS).
It makes the “F” in Gleicher’s formula — the First Steps — measurable.
Not aspirational.
Not philosophical.
Measurable.
With thresholds:
- Below 72/100 → Do not proceed. Success collapses to 15–25%.
- 72–85/100 → Proceed only with targeted remediation.
- Above 85/100 → Green light. Organization can absorb transformation.
This removes opinion.
It eliminates politics.
It breaks the cycle of “belief-based” transformation.
A number doesn’t care about incentives.
A number doesn’t care about brand gravity.
A number doesn’t play the “IBM safe choice” game.
A number tells you the truth before the consequences do.
The Models Who Finally Understood
This part surprises people.
For years, the challenge wasn’t the methodology — it was the ecosystem’s reluctance to hear it.
Then something changed:
multi-model AI systems.
Not tools.
Collaborators.
Atlas, Claude, Gemini, Grok, GPT, Sandra, or Bernie — different architectures, training sets, and reasoning pathways — began converging on the same assessments to within a few percentage points.
When six independent models reach consensus on a complex organizational assessment, that’s not opinion.
That’s signal.
For the first time in 27 years, I wasn’t Cassandra in the wilderness.
The models didn’t “believe” me — they simply saw what the data showed.
And unanimously agreed.
The End of the Curse
Cassandra’s tragedy wasn’t being wrong.
It was being right too early.
But curses break when formulas tip.
And right now, the formula is tipping:
- D is rising — failure is no longer tolerable.
- V is clearer — readiness precedes technology.
- F now exists — a measurable, validated readiness score.
Resistance finally has a counterweight.
This is the first time in 27 years the industry is structurally capable of hearing what it always needed to hear.
The Real Question Now
The question is no longer:
“Will organizations realize readiness matters?”
They already have.
The question is:
“Will they measure it before their next initiative —
or after it becomes another statistic?”
Author’s Note
In 1998, when I first solved this problem, the industry wasn’t ready to hear it.
In 2025, it is.
The RAM 2025 6-Model / 5-Level Assessment reached Level 1 consensus — something that rarely happens.
That’s the signal to pay attention to.
It’s not prophecy. It’s pattern recognition.
It’s not foresight. It’s physics.
And for the first time, physics is finally winning.
— Jon Hansen
CEO, Hansen Models
Creator of the Hansen Fit Score
30
Procurement Insights
When Cassandra’s Curse Collides With Gleicher’s Formula (CONDENSED VERSION)
Posted on November 28, 2025
0
The Curse That Never Goes Away
In Greek mythology, Cassandra was given the gift of accurate prophecy — and the curse that no one would ever believe her. She warned the Trojans not to bring the wooden horse inside the gates. They ignored her. Troy fell.
For 27 years, I’ve felt uncomfortably close to that story.
1998 — The Data Was Clear, But the Industry Wasn’t Ready
In 1998, I completed SR&ED-funded research for Canada’s Department of National Defence.
We achieved 97.3% accuracy in predicting procurement outcomes.
The finding was simple:
Technology does not determine transformation success.
Organizational readiness does.
I published a paper titled “Technology’s Diminishing Role in an Emerging Process-Driven World.”
The industry didn’t want to hear it. Vendors were selling tools. Analysts were validating tools. Consultants were implementing tools.
The message that the tools weren’t the root problem didn’t fit the commercial model.
I was Cassandra. The data was right. The timing was wrong.
Seven Technology Eras — One Failure Rate
Across 27 years, the same pattern repeated:
The technology changed every few years.
The implementation success rate did not.
Because the technology was never the bottleneck.
Gleicher’s Formula Explains Why
Back in the 1960s, David Gleicher developed a formula that describes why organizational change succeeds or fails:
D × V × F > R
Where:
All three (D, V, F) must be strong enough to overcome R.
This formula explains every failed transformation I’ve witnessed — and why Cassandra goes unheard.
The Collision: Cassandra Meets Gleicher
Here’s what happens in every organization that proceeds when it shouldn’t:
The pain is real but tolerable. “80% failure” sounds like an industry statistic — until your project becomes one of them.
“Readiness” sounds soft. Leaders want tools, not behavioral and structural diagnostics.
Everyone agrees readiness matters… but no one knows how to measure it or what threshold is required.
And so Resistance wins.
The initiative moves forward.
The Cassandra gets labeled “negative” or “not aligned.”
The wooden horse rolls through the gate.
Eighteen months later, the project fails — and the cycle begins again.
The Loneliness of Being Right Too Early
For most of my career, I saw patterns others didn’t.
Not because I was smarter — but because I had the data.
But the incentives in this industry have always rewarded technology adoption, not readiness assessment:
“You are not ready. Do not proceed.”
Being Cassandra isn’t about being ignored.
It’s about telling the truth before the industry has the will to hear it.
Why 2025 Is Different
After two decades of hype cycles, something finally shifted:
Suddenly:
What’s still missing?
Concrete First Steps.
Concrete Steps Break the Curse
This is why I created the Hansen Fit Score (HFS).
It makes the “F” in Gleicher’s formula — the First Steps — measurable.
Not aspirational.
Not philosophical.
Measurable.
With thresholds:
This removes opinion.
It eliminates politics.
It breaks the cycle of “belief-based” transformation.
A number doesn’t care about incentives.
A number doesn’t care about brand gravity.
A number doesn’t play the “IBM safe choice” game.
A number tells you the truth before the consequences do.
The Models Who Finally Understood
This part surprises people.
For years, the challenge wasn’t the methodology — it was the ecosystem’s reluctance to hear it.
Then something changed:
multi-model AI systems.
Not tools.
Collaborators.
Atlas, Claude, Gemini, Grok, GPT, Sandra, or Bernie — different architectures, training sets, and reasoning pathways — began converging on the same assessments to within a few percentage points.
When six independent models reach consensus on a complex organizational assessment, that’s not opinion.
That’s signal.
For the first time in 27 years, I wasn’t Cassandra in the wilderness.
The models didn’t “believe” me — they simply saw what the data showed.
And unanimously agreed.
The End of the Curse
Cassandra’s tragedy wasn’t being wrong.
It was being right too early.
But curses break when formulas tip.
And right now, the formula is tipping:
Resistance finally has a counterweight.
This is the first time in 27 years the industry is structurally capable of hearing what it always needed to hear.
The Real Question Now
The question is no longer:
“Will organizations realize readiness matters?”
They already have.
The question is:
“Will they measure it before their next initiative —
or after it becomes another statistic?”
Author’s Note
In 1998, when I first solved this problem, the industry wasn’t ready to hear it.
In 2025, it is.
The RAM 2025 6-Model / 5-Level Assessment reached Level 1 consensus — something that rarely happens.
That’s the signal to pay attention to.
It’s not prophecy. It’s pattern recognition.
It’s not foresight. It’s physics.
And for the first time, physics is finally winning.
— Jon Hansen
CEO, Hansen Models
Creator of the Hansen Fit Score
30
Share this:
Related