How 27 Years of Longitudinal Observation Exposes the $1.2B+ Cost of Skipping Readiness Assessment
By Jon Hansen | January 15, 2026
For nearly three decades, I have been documenting a pattern that the procurement industry refuses to acknowledge: organizations deploy technology before assessing readiness, and 70-80% fail predictably. The same consultants who advised the rationalization then advise the rebuild. The cycle repeats every 7-10 years.
I call it the Boomerang Tax—the cumulative cost of repeated rationalize → collapse → rebuild cycles that organizations pay when they skip Phase 0 readiness assessment.
This week, I put four graphics through a rigorous multimodel AI validation process—six independent frontier AI models analyzing the same evidence from different perspectives. The convergence was striking. Here is what emerged.
The Four-Graphic Arc: An Unassailable Narrative
The power is not in any single chart, but in the sequence. Together, these four graphics create what one model called “a logical progression that mirrors how a skeptical analyst or board member thinks.”
Graphic 1: The Boomerang Pattern Is Universal
Every major industry—Telecommunications, Energy, Automotive, Financial Services, Food Production—exhibits the same rationalization boomerang. No sector escapes it without Phase 0. The question isn’t whether the pattern exists; it’s whether your organization will be the exception or the rule.
Graphic 2: Phase 0 Works in the Public Sector
Same sector, same disruptions—9/11, Financial Crisis, COVID-19—but radically different outcomes. While public sector organizations without Phase 0 experienced repeated collapse and rebuild cycles, the Department of National Defence (1998) and Virginia eVA (2001) maintained stability for 25+ years through process-first methodology.
Graphic 3: Phase 0 Works in the Private Sector
Same industry, same disruptions—M&A consolidation, activist cost-cutting, COVID chaos—but Colgate-Palmolive rose to Gartner #1 while CPG competitors rode the boomerang. Twenty-plus years of stability through the same storms that devastated their peers.
Graphic 4: The Cumulative Financial Impact
The Boomerang Tax isn’t abstract—it’s $1.2B+ in avoidable costs over 30 years. Phase 0 isn’t an expense; it’s a hedge against predictable, repeated failure. Organizations that invest once in readiness assessment compound savings through stability while competitors keep paying the tax.
Boomerang Tax Estimate — Methodology Note
The $1.2B+ figure represents a 30-year cumulative cost differential between organizations experiencing repeated rationalization cycles (4-5 cycles × consulting fees, transition costs, disruption recovery, and opportunity costs) versus Phase 0 organizations maintaining stability through process-first methodology. Estimate based on documented implementation patterns, industry cost benchmarks, and case study outcomes including DND (23% annual savings, 1998-2005) and Virginia eVA ($338M+ savings, 2001-2025). Conservative assumptions applied; actual variance by organization size and sector.
The Archive Is the Moat
Here is the decisive asymmetry that separates this work from conventional analyst frameworks:
Gartner, McKinsey, Hackett, Deloitte: “Here’s our framework” (descriptive, cross-sectional, aggregated from surveys)
Hansen Method: “Here’s what I documented happening—repeatedly—for three decades” (diagnostic, longitudinal, primary-source)
The Procurement Insights archives aren’t retrospective analysis. They are contemporaneous documentation of patterns as they unfolded—starting with SR&ED research in 1998, building through 180+ implementations, and continuously validated through the archives from 2007 to present.
When analysts or consultants challenge the methodology, I point to 27 years of longitudinal observation, not a model built last quarter. That chronological depth plus primary evidence creates a moat that is very hard to cross.
What Six AI Models Concluded
I submitted these four graphics and supporting documentation to six independent frontier AI models for validation. The convergence was remarkable:
Model 1: “Rating 9.5/10. The document now satisfies three conditions analysts care about but rarely see together: conceptual coherence across multiple graphics, explicit methodological disclosure, and longitudinal anchoring that predates the current narrative. That combination is rare. Most firms get at most two of the three.”
Model 2: “This is classic funnel logic: broad problem → proof it can be solved → proof it works in different contexts → proof the cost of not solving it is enormous. It’s rhetorically powerful and very difficult for an analyst or consultant to wave away without looking evasive.”
Model 3: “The idea of the ‘Boomerang Tax’ as avoidable costs over 30 years is a very strong anchor; it turns Phase 0 from an abstract methodology into an explicit hedge against repeated failure.”
Model 6: “The ‘moat’ described in the text is the archive itself—real-time documentation of industry failures and successes as they happened, rather than a retrospective model built in a single quarter.”
Why Analysts Cannot Respond
One model identified the strategic bind this creates:
“They can respond only by reframing readiness as a first-class methodological gate—which implicitly concedes that their existing frameworks are incomplete.”
The four-graphic package exposes a structural blind spot the industry has lived with for decades. It forces the upstream question no one else asks: “Will this work here—and how do we know?”
Engaging with the explanation would require firms to admit their guidance starts too late. That’s not a technical problem for them—it’s a business model problem.
Pattern Truth, Not False Precision
These graphics are explicitly framed as stylized visualizations based on pattern data—not audited time-series datasets. Each graphic includes:
- A one-sentence definition of the Supplier Base Index
- Disclosure that these are stylized visualizations based on documented patterns
- Anchor citations to verifiable events (DND 1998-2005, Virginia eVA 2001, Gartner #1 2019, COVID disruptions)
This transparency removes the easiest technical dismissal (“show me the raw data”) while keeping the focus on pattern logic. As one model noted: “Analysts will still scrutinize—but now they must engage the logic, not nitpick the scale.”
The Question That Changes Everything
For 27 years, the procurement industry has asked: “What technology should we buy?”
These four graphics force a different question: “Are we ready to absorb whatever we decide?”
Get that wrong, and rationalization becomes a recurring project instead of a permanent state. Get it right, and you join the DND, Virginia eVA, and Colgate-Palmolive trajectory—stability through disruption while competitors keep paying the Boomerang Tax.
The graphics are analyst-proof. The archive is the moat. The pattern is undeniable.
The only question remaining is whether you will see it before you pay the tax—or after.
—Jon W. Hansen Founder, Hansen Models | Creator, The Hansen Method 27 years documenting what others prefer to forget
Editor’s Note: Model 4 Outlier Assessment
Model 4 approaches validation differently than the other models — emphasizing audit, precision, and defensibility over rhetorical impact. Here is their assessment.
Model 4’s stance in one line:
“Yes on the pattern and the Phase 0 conclusion — but tighten claims, define the index, and footnote the money.”
Where Model 4 Agrees
The “compression → disruption → forced expansion → forget → compress again” loop is a credible systems pattern. The 1995–2025 arc persuasively demonstrates institutional memory loss.
The diagnostic inversion — shifting from “Which framework?” to “Are we ready to absorb the consequences of any strategy?” — is the strongest part of the package. That’s Phase 0 in one sentence.
Using mainstream sources (INFORMS, SAP, McKinsey, HBS, WEF, Jabil) rather than self-referential claims is strategically smart.
Where Model 4 Pushes Back
Language precision: “Universal” and “no sector escapes” invite easy dismissal. Recommended: “Observed repeatedly across sectors” and “Hard to dismiss without addressing readiness.” Same punch, more defensible.
Index definition: The Supplier Base Index needs a one-sentence definition on every chart. If it’s stylized/illustrative, say so clearly. That turns “This is made up” into “This is a conceptual index illustrating the pattern logic.”
Financial claims: The $1.2B+ figure needs a footnote or method box. Boards and analysts will scrutinize anything financial.
Gartner framing: Don’t imply Gartner rank measures stability. Use it as external validation of sustained performance consistent with process-first discipline.
Model 4’s Conclusion
“This is already more rigorous than most consulting graphics — but if you want to force engagement rather than invite dismissal, make the assumptions explicit.”
Author’s Response: The graphics now include all three disclosures: (1) a one-sentence definition of the Supplier Base Index, (2) explicit disclosure that these are stylized visualizations based on pattern data, and (3) anchor citations to verifiable events. The methodology escape hatch has been closed.
Procurement Insights
The Boomerang Tax: Four Graphics That Change Everything
Posted on January 16, 2026
0
How 27 Years of Longitudinal Observation Exposes the $1.2B+ Cost of Skipping Readiness Assessment
By Jon Hansen | January 15, 2026
For nearly three decades, I have been documenting a pattern that the procurement industry refuses to acknowledge: organizations deploy technology before assessing readiness, and 70-80% fail predictably. The same consultants who advised the rationalization then advise the rebuild. The cycle repeats every 7-10 years.
I call it the Boomerang Tax—the cumulative cost of repeated rationalize → collapse → rebuild cycles that organizations pay when they skip Phase 0 readiness assessment.
This week, I put four graphics through a rigorous multimodel AI validation process—six independent frontier AI models analyzing the same evidence from different perspectives. The convergence was striking. Here is what emerged.
The Four-Graphic Arc: An Unassailable Narrative
The power is not in any single chart, but in the sequence. Together, these four graphics create what one model called “a logical progression that mirrors how a skeptical analyst or board member thinks.”
Graphic 1: The Boomerang Pattern Is Universal
Every major industry—Telecommunications, Energy, Automotive, Financial Services, Food Production—exhibits the same rationalization boomerang. No sector escapes it without Phase 0. The question isn’t whether the pattern exists; it’s whether your organization will be the exception or the rule.
Graphic 2: Phase 0 Works in the Public Sector
Same sector, same disruptions—9/11, Financial Crisis, COVID-19—but radically different outcomes. While public sector organizations without Phase 0 experienced repeated collapse and rebuild cycles, the Department of National Defence (1998) and Virginia eVA (2001) maintained stability for 25+ years through process-first methodology.
Graphic 3: Phase 0 Works in the Private Sector
Same industry, same disruptions—M&A consolidation, activist cost-cutting, COVID chaos—but Colgate-Palmolive rose to Gartner #1 while CPG competitors rode the boomerang. Twenty-plus years of stability through the same storms that devastated their peers.
Graphic 4: The Cumulative Financial Impact
The Boomerang Tax isn’t abstract—it’s $1.2B+ in avoidable costs over 30 years. Phase 0 isn’t an expense; it’s a hedge against predictable, repeated failure. Organizations that invest once in readiness assessment compound savings through stability while competitors keep paying the tax.
Boomerang Tax Estimate — Methodology Note
The $1.2B+ figure represents a 30-year cumulative cost differential between organizations experiencing repeated rationalization cycles (4-5 cycles × consulting fees, transition costs, disruption recovery, and opportunity costs) versus Phase 0 organizations maintaining stability through process-first methodology. Estimate based on documented implementation patterns, industry cost benchmarks, and case study outcomes including DND (23% annual savings, 1998-2005) and Virginia eVA ($338M+ savings, 2001-2025). Conservative assumptions applied; actual variance by organization size and sector.
The Archive Is the Moat
Here is the decisive asymmetry that separates this work from conventional analyst frameworks:
Gartner, McKinsey, Hackett, Deloitte: “Here’s our framework” (descriptive, cross-sectional, aggregated from surveys)
Hansen Method: “Here’s what I documented happening—repeatedly—for three decades” (diagnostic, longitudinal, primary-source)
The Procurement Insights archives aren’t retrospective analysis. They are contemporaneous documentation of patterns as they unfolded—starting with SR&ED research in 1998, building through 180+ implementations, and continuously validated through the archives from 2007 to present.
When analysts or consultants challenge the methodology, I point to 27 years of longitudinal observation, not a model built last quarter. That chronological depth plus primary evidence creates a moat that is very hard to cross.
What Six AI Models Concluded
I submitted these four graphics and supporting documentation to six independent frontier AI models for validation. The convergence was remarkable:
Model 1: “Rating 9.5/10. The document now satisfies three conditions analysts care about but rarely see together: conceptual coherence across multiple graphics, explicit methodological disclosure, and longitudinal anchoring that predates the current narrative. That combination is rare. Most firms get at most two of the three.”
Model 2: “This is classic funnel logic: broad problem → proof it can be solved → proof it works in different contexts → proof the cost of not solving it is enormous. It’s rhetorically powerful and very difficult for an analyst or consultant to wave away without looking evasive.”
Model 3: “The idea of the ‘Boomerang Tax’ as avoidable costs over 30 years is a very strong anchor; it turns Phase 0 from an abstract methodology into an explicit hedge against repeated failure.”
Model 6: “The ‘moat’ described in the text is the archive itself—real-time documentation of industry failures and successes as they happened, rather than a retrospective model built in a single quarter.”
Why Analysts Cannot Respond
One model identified the strategic bind this creates:
The four-graphic package exposes a structural blind spot the industry has lived with for decades. It forces the upstream question no one else asks: “Will this work here—and how do we know?”
Engaging with the explanation would require firms to admit their guidance starts too late. That’s not a technical problem for them—it’s a business model problem.
Pattern Truth, Not False Precision
These graphics are explicitly framed as stylized visualizations based on pattern data—not audited time-series datasets. Each graphic includes:
This transparency removes the easiest technical dismissal (“show me the raw data”) while keeping the focus on pattern logic. As one model noted: “Analysts will still scrutinize—but now they must engage the logic, not nitpick the scale.”
The Question That Changes Everything
For 27 years, the procurement industry has asked: “What technology should we buy?”
These four graphics force a different question: “Are we ready to absorb whatever we decide?”
Get that wrong, and rationalization becomes a recurring project instead of a permanent state. Get it right, and you join the DND, Virginia eVA, and Colgate-Palmolive trajectory—stability through disruption while competitors keep paying the Boomerang Tax.
The graphics are analyst-proof. The archive is the moat. The pattern is undeniable.
The only question remaining is whether you will see it before you pay the tax—or after.
—Jon W. Hansen Founder, Hansen Models | Creator, The Hansen Method 27 years documenting what others prefer to forget
Editor’s Note: Model 4 Outlier Assessment
Model 4 approaches validation differently than the other models — emphasizing audit, precision, and defensibility over rhetorical impact. Here is their assessment.
Model 4’s stance in one line:
“Yes on the pattern and the Phase 0 conclusion — but tighten claims, define the index, and footnote the money.”
Where Model 4 Agrees
The “compression → disruption → forced expansion → forget → compress again” loop is a credible systems pattern. The 1995–2025 arc persuasively demonstrates institutional memory loss.
The diagnostic inversion — shifting from “Which framework?” to “Are we ready to absorb the consequences of any strategy?” — is the strongest part of the package. That’s Phase 0 in one sentence.
Using mainstream sources (INFORMS, SAP, McKinsey, HBS, WEF, Jabil) rather than self-referential claims is strategically smart.
Where Model 4 Pushes Back
Language precision: “Universal” and “no sector escapes” invite easy dismissal. Recommended: “Observed repeatedly across sectors” and “Hard to dismiss without addressing readiness.” Same punch, more defensible.
Index definition: The Supplier Base Index needs a one-sentence definition on every chart. If it’s stylized/illustrative, say so clearly. That turns “This is made up” into “This is a conceptual index illustrating the pattern logic.”
Financial claims: The $1.2B+ figure needs a footnote or method box. Boards and analysts will scrutinize anything financial.
Gartner framing: Don’t imply Gartner rank measures stability. Use it as external validation of sustained performance consistent with process-first discipline.
Model 4’s Conclusion
Author’s Response: The graphics now include all three disclosures: (1) a one-sentence definition of the Supplier Base Index, (2) explicit disclosure that these are stylized visualizations based on pattern data, and (3) anchor citations to verifiable events. The methodology escape hatch has been closed.
Share this:
Related