By Jon Hansen | January 15, 2026
A LinkedIn post crossed my feed this morning from Rajib Gupta, promoting a “4E Framework” for supplier consolidation. The tagline: “It’s not about ‘What’ — It’s about ‘How’.” Co-authored with Danny Kreidy, Matt Baldino, and contributions from Pete Slease, Brian Menke, and Andrea Greenwald, it presents Evaluate, Eliminate, Evolve, Engage as a structured approach to reducing tail spend and curbing maverick buying.
My first thought: Progress. They’ve correctly identified that methodology matters more than just knowing what to do.
My second thought: We’ve been here before. Many times. And the framework still has the same foundational gap I’ve been documenting since 2007.
The Question They Forgot to Ask
“It’s not about ‘What’ — It’s about ‘How'” represents a shift in thinking. But it’s incomplete. The real question isn’t What or How — it’s “Ready?”
The 4E Framework tells you what to do (consolidate suppliers) and what steps to follow. But it doesn’t answer: Is your organization ready to execute this? Do you have stakeholder alignment across procurement, finance, and business units? What’s your change capacity right now? Will this framework succeed here, or just look good in a presentation?
That’s the implementation gap. That’s what Phase 0 solves. And that’s why 80% of procurement transformation initiatives continue to fail — not because the frameworks are wrong, but because they’re applied to organizations that aren’t prepared to execute them.
Why This Matters: The Dangerous Supply Chain Myths
In 2007, I published a series called “Dangerous Supply Chain Myths” based on my analysis of the ISM, CAPS, and A.T. Kearney report. Part 7, on Enabling Technology and the Emergence of the Metaprise, addressed precisely this pattern: the belief that technology (or frameworks) can drive transformation independent of organizational readiness.
The research was clear then, and it remains clear now: between 2001 and 2005, 75 to 85% of all e-procurement initiatives failed to achieve promised results. The pattern hasn’t fundamentally changed. We’ve just repackaged the same approaches with new names.
In that same series, I introduced the concept of commodity characteristics — specifically, the distinction between Historic Flat Line commodities (direct materials with stable pricing, accounting for about 80% of spend but only 10% of procurement cycle time) and Dynamic Flux commodities (indirect MRO materials with significant price volatility, accounting for 15-20% of spend but 90% of procurement cycle time).
The critical insight: the purchasing processes that apply to one type of commodity characteristic do not apply to the other. When organizations apply a vendor rationalization strategy across all commodity types — which is precisely what consolidated supplier base approaches advocate — they create the process and technological misalignment that drives compliance problems and initiative failures.
The Evidence: Department of National Defence
This isn’t theoretical. Starting in 1998 with government-funded SR&ED research, I led a project enabling Canada’s Department of National Defence to acquire Indirect MRO spare parts from suppliers across North America with 24-hour delivery requirements to 40 bases nationwide.
Before our intervention, the DND was operating under a rationalized supply base model. The result? Mark-ups averaging up to 157% above market prices for IT spare parts. This is what happens when you compress the supply base for Dynamic Flux commodities — you eliminate the competitive dynamics that drive pricing efficiency.
Our approach went deep into the supply base rather than compressing it. We focused on people and processes before implementing technology. The results: 23% annual cost savings for seven consecutive years. Staff reduced from 23 to 3 while improving delivery performance and product quality. Delivery accuracy of 97.3%. These outcomes led to a $12 million company sale in 2001.
The difference wasn’t the framework. It was the readiness assessment and process alignment that preceded implementation.
The Continuing Danger of Vendor Rationalization
In November 2007, I wrote “The Continuing Dangers of Vendor Rationalization,” addressing why this strategy persists despite consistent evidence of its limitations when broadly applied:
“When broadly applied across an enterprise’s entire spend, statistics clearly indicate that the practice of rationalizing the supply base will actually lead to increased costs in areas such as Indirect Material procurement… Based on years of analyzing e-procurement initiatives in both the public and private sectors, the one common denominator in all failed undertakings is that the program originated as an adjunct to either an ERP-centric or IT-centric strategy.”
The conclusion then holds now: vendor rationalization is often a by-product of technological limitation masquerading as operational strategy. The resulting fallout contributes to Double Marginalization — higher buy prices mirrored by decreasing supplier profitability. Everyone loses except those selling the methodology.
What the 4E Framework Gets Right — And What’s Still Missing
Let me be clear: the 4E Framework isn’t wrong. It represents sound methodology for organizations that are positioned to execute it. The problem is that most organizations aren’t positioned to execute any framework — and there’s no diagnostic step to determine this before implementation begins.
Rajib Gupta and his co-authors have presented a structured approach without a readiness gate. The framework will work for the 20% who were already positioned to succeed. For the 80% who weren’t, it becomes another expensive methodology applied to an unready foundation.
The owl holding the sign in the post graphic is almost too on-the-nose: “It’s not about ‘What’ — It’s about ‘How'”… while skipping the foundational question entirely.
They’re selling the cure without diagnosing the patient.
The Phase 0 Difference
The Hansen Method addresses this gap directly. Before any framework implementation — whether the 4E Framework or anyone else’s methodology — Phase 0 asks the question that determines whether you’ll be in the 20% that succeeds or the 80% that fails: “Will it work here, and how do we know?”
This isn’t about replacing supplier consolidation frameworks. It’s about ensuring the organization is ready to execute them. The DND case study proved that focusing on people and processes before implementing technology — measuring readiness before prescribing solutions — transforms outcomes from industry-standard 80% failure to documented, repeatable success.
Frameworks don’t fail because they’re wrong. They fail because they’re applied to organizations that aren’t prepared to execute them.
A Question of Accountability
I’ve put my name on 27 years of research. I’ve documented my methodology, published my findings, stood behind my predictions, and been accountable for every claim I’ve made. The DND results are verifiable. The commodity characteristics research is documented. The failure patterns I identified in 2007 continue to manifest exactly as predicted.
Rajib Gupta, Danny Kreidy, Matt Baldino, Pete Slease, Brian Menke, and Andrea Greenwald have put their names on this framework. They should be accountable for it, too. When organizations implement the 4E Framework and join the 80% that fail, will these authors examine why? Will they acknowledge the missing readiness gate? Or will the failures be attributed to “execution issues” while the methodology remains unquestioned?
Intellectual accountability matters. It’s how the profession advances.
The Bottom Line
Rajib Gupta’s post isn’t dangerous because the 4E Framework is flawed. It’s potentially dangerous because it perpetuates the industry pattern I’ve been documenting for 27 years: methodologies presented as solutions without readiness gates, applied to organizations across all commodity types regardless of characteristic alignment, generating the predictable 80% failure rate that the profession has somehow accepted as normal.
The question isn’t whether Evaluate-Eliminate-Evolve-Engage is a sound sequence. The question is whether your organization is ready to execute any sequence at all.
That’s not a framework problem. That’s a Phase 0 problem.
And until the industry addresses it, we’ll keep repackaging the same approaches, with new names and new graphics, generating the same disappointing results.
Related Reading from the Procurement Insights Archives:
DND Case Study Impact: Is It Still Relevant in 2025?
Dangerous Supply Chain Myths Revisited (Part 7): Enabling Technology – The Emergence of the Metaprise (2007/2011)
The Continuing Dangers of Vendor Rationalization (2007)
Supplier Discovery versus Vendor Rationalization: A Case of an Irresistible Force Meeting an Immovable Object (2024)
SPECIAL FEATURE: Key Articles on Maverick Spend (Chronological)
2013
“3 Supply Chain Concepts That Should Finally (And Mercifully) Be Abandoned in 2013” (December 18, 2013)
2014
“cloudBuy: A Dragon’s Den View” (January 30, 2014)
2022
“Making A Case for Maverick Spend and A Maverick Mindset” (October 18, 2022)
2023
“User Adoption and the Rise of the AI Chatbots: The End of Maverick Spend, Vendor Rationalization and Change Management” (October 26, 2023)
“Which Picture is an Example of an ‘Off-Contract Buy’?” (October 19, 2023)
2025
“When It Comes to Maverick Spend Should You Eradicate or Embrace It?” (May 13, 2025)
The Core Thesis on Maverick Spend (Documented Over 12+ Years)
- Maverick spend is an artificially created problem — the unintended consequence of poorly designed ERP platforms that limited supplier engagement
- Buyers went “maverick” because they knew better — experienced purchasers recognized they could beat centrally negotiated contracts for certain commodity types
- The industry’s response was backwards — instead of fixing the technology, they introduced “change management” to force compliance (and charged for it)
- For Dynamic Flux commodities (Indirect MRO), off-contract buying delivers better results — the DND case study and others prove this empirically
- The unholy trinity should be retired: Maverick Spend, Change Management, and Vendor Rationalization are interconnected concepts that perpetuate procurement dysfunction
-30-
Procurement Insights
Rajib Gupta’s Post And Why It Is Potentially ‘Dangerous’ After All These Years?
Posted on January 15, 2026
0
By Jon Hansen | January 15, 2026
A LinkedIn post crossed my feed this morning from Rajib Gupta, promoting a “4E Framework” for supplier consolidation. The tagline: “It’s not about ‘What’ — It’s about ‘How’.” Co-authored with Danny Kreidy, Matt Baldino, and contributions from Pete Slease, Brian Menke, and Andrea Greenwald, it presents Evaluate, Eliminate, Evolve, Engage as a structured approach to reducing tail spend and curbing maverick buying.
My first thought: Progress. They’ve correctly identified that methodology matters more than just knowing what to do.
My second thought: We’ve been here before. Many times. And the framework still has the same foundational gap I’ve been documenting since 2007.
The Question They Forgot to Ask
“It’s not about ‘What’ — It’s about ‘How'” represents a shift in thinking. But it’s incomplete. The real question isn’t What or How — it’s “Ready?”
The 4E Framework tells you what to do (consolidate suppliers) and what steps to follow. But it doesn’t answer: Is your organization ready to execute this? Do you have stakeholder alignment across procurement, finance, and business units? What’s your change capacity right now? Will this framework succeed here, or just look good in a presentation?
That’s the implementation gap. That’s what Phase 0 solves. And that’s why 80% of procurement transformation initiatives continue to fail — not because the frameworks are wrong, but because they’re applied to organizations that aren’t prepared to execute them.
Why This Matters: The Dangerous Supply Chain Myths
In 2007, I published a series called “Dangerous Supply Chain Myths” based on my analysis of the ISM, CAPS, and A.T. Kearney report. Part 7, on Enabling Technology and the Emergence of the Metaprise, addressed precisely this pattern: the belief that technology (or frameworks) can drive transformation independent of organizational readiness.
The research was clear then, and it remains clear now: between 2001 and 2005, 75 to 85% of all e-procurement initiatives failed to achieve promised results. The pattern hasn’t fundamentally changed. We’ve just repackaged the same approaches with new names.
In that same series, I introduced the concept of commodity characteristics — specifically, the distinction between Historic Flat Line commodities (direct materials with stable pricing, accounting for about 80% of spend but only 10% of procurement cycle time) and Dynamic Flux commodities (indirect MRO materials with significant price volatility, accounting for 15-20% of spend but 90% of procurement cycle time).
The critical insight: the purchasing processes that apply to one type of commodity characteristic do not apply to the other. When organizations apply a vendor rationalization strategy across all commodity types — which is precisely what consolidated supplier base approaches advocate — they create the process and technological misalignment that drives compliance problems and initiative failures.
The Evidence: Department of National Defence
This isn’t theoretical. Starting in 1998 with government-funded SR&ED research, I led a project enabling Canada’s Department of National Defence to acquire Indirect MRO spare parts from suppliers across North America with 24-hour delivery requirements to 40 bases nationwide.
Before our intervention, the DND was operating under a rationalized supply base model. The result? Mark-ups averaging up to 157% above market prices for IT spare parts. This is what happens when you compress the supply base for Dynamic Flux commodities — you eliminate the competitive dynamics that drive pricing efficiency.
Our approach went deep into the supply base rather than compressing it. We focused on people and processes before implementing technology. The results: 23% annual cost savings for seven consecutive years. Staff reduced from 23 to 3 while improving delivery performance and product quality. Delivery accuracy of 97.3%. These outcomes led to a $12 million company sale in 2001.
The difference wasn’t the framework. It was the readiness assessment and process alignment that preceded implementation.
The Continuing Danger of Vendor Rationalization
In November 2007, I wrote “The Continuing Dangers of Vendor Rationalization,” addressing why this strategy persists despite consistent evidence of its limitations when broadly applied:
“When broadly applied across an enterprise’s entire spend, statistics clearly indicate that the practice of rationalizing the supply base will actually lead to increased costs in areas such as Indirect Material procurement… Based on years of analyzing e-procurement initiatives in both the public and private sectors, the one common denominator in all failed undertakings is that the program originated as an adjunct to either an ERP-centric or IT-centric strategy.”
The conclusion then holds now: vendor rationalization is often a by-product of technological limitation masquerading as operational strategy. The resulting fallout contributes to Double Marginalization — higher buy prices mirrored by decreasing supplier profitability. Everyone loses except those selling the methodology.
What the 4E Framework Gets Right — And What’s Still Missing
Let me be clear: the 4E Framework isn’t wrong. It represents sound methodology for organizations that are positioned to execute it. The problem is that most organizations aren’t positioned to execute any framework — and there’s no diagnostic step to determine this before implementation begins.
Rajib Gupta and his co-authors have presented a structured approach without a readiness gate. The framework will work for the 20% who were already positioned to succeed. For the 80% who weren’t, it becomes another expensive methodology applied to an unready foundation.
The owl holding the sign in the post graphic is almost too on-the-nose: “It’s not about ‘What’ — It’s about ‘How'”… while skipping the foundational question entirely.
They’re selling the cure without diagnosing the patient.
The Phase 0 Difference
The Hansen Method addresses this gap directly. Before any framework implementation — whether the 4E Framework or anyone else’s methodology — Phase 0 asks the question that determines whether you’ll be in the 20% that succeeds or the 80% that fails: “Will it work here, and how do we know?”
This isn’t about replacing supplier consolidation frameworks. It’s about ensuring the organization is ready to execute them. The DND case study proved that focusing on people and processes before implementing technology — measuring readiness before prescribing solutions — transforms outcomes from industry-standard 80% failure to documented, repeatable success.
Frameworks don’t fail because they’re wrong. They fail because they’re applied to organizations that aren’t prepared to execute them.
A Question of Accountability
I’ve put my name on 27 years of research. I’ve documented my methodology, published my findings, stood behind my predictions, and been accountable for every claim I’ve made. The DND results are verifiable. The commodity characteristics research is documented. The failure patterns I identified in 2007 continue to manifest exactly as predicted.
Rajib Gupta, Danny Kreidy, Matt Baldino, Pete Slease, Brian Menke, and Andrea Greenwald have put their names on this framework. They should be accountable for it, too. When organizations implement the 4E Framework and join the 80% that fail, will these authors examine why? Will they acknowledge the missing readiness gate? Or will the failures be attributed to “execution issues” while the methodology remains unquestioned?
Intellectual accountability matters. It’s how the profession advances.
The Bottom Line
Rajib Gupta’s post isn’t dangerous because the 4E Framework is flawed. It’s potentially dangerous because it perpetuates the industry pattern I’ve been documenting for 27 years: methodologies presented as solutions without readiness gates, applied to organizations across all commodity types regardless of characteristic alignment, generating the predictable 80% failure rate that the profession has somehow accepted as normal.
The question isn’t whether Evaluate-Eliminate-Evolve-Engage is a sound sequence. The question is whether your organization is ready to execute any sequence at all.
That’s not a framework problem. That’s a Phase 0 problem.
And until the industry addresses it, we’ll keep repackaging the same approaches, with new names and new graphics, generating the same disappointing results.
Related Reading from the Procurement Insights Archives:
DND Case Study Impact: Is It Still Relevant in 2025?
Dangerous Supply Chain Myths Revisited (Part 7): Enabling Technology – The Emergence of the Metaprise (2007/2011)
The Continuing Dangers of Vendor Rationalization (2007)
Supplier Discovery versus Vendor Rationalization: A Case of an Irresistible Force Meeting an Immovable Object (2024)
SPECIAL FEATURE: Key Articles on Maverick Spend (Chronological)
2013
“3 Supply Chain Concepts That Should Finally (And Mercifully) Be Abandoned in 2013” (December 18, 2013)
2014
“cloudBuy: A Dragon’s Den View” (January 30, 2014)
2022
“Making A Case for Maverick Spend and A Maverick Mindset” (October 18, 2022)
2023
“User Adoption and the Rise of the AI Chatbots: The End of Maverick Spend, Vendor Rationalization and Change Management” (October 26, 2023)
“Which Picture is an Example of an ‘Off-Contract Buy’?” (October 19, 2023)
2025
“When It Comes to Maverick Spend Should You Eradicate or Embrace It?” (May 13, 2025)
The Core Thesis on Maverick Spend (Documented Over 12+ Years)
-30-
Share this:
Related