When IBM Research’s quantum verification discipline mirrors a procurement readiness framework — and a former IBM executive is the one who notices — the parallel is worth examining.
There is a quiet lesson emerging from an unexpected place — quantum physics — and it reinforces something Procurement Insights has been documenting for more than two decades.
Not about speed. Not about scale. Not about commercial readiness.
About discipline before deployment.
The connection was first identified by Don Osborn, former IBM executive and Hansen Models™ Advisory Team member, who recognized the structural parallel between IBM Research’s quantum verification discipline and the Phase 0 readiness framework. When someone who spent their career inside IBM’s research culture reads a quantum progress update from the Director of IBM Research and immediately sees the same methodology being applied to an entirely different domain — that is not a metaphor. That is pattern recognition from someone who has lived on both sides of the equation.
What Quantum Researchers Are Actually Doing
In February 2026, Jay Gambetta, Director of IBM Research and IBM Fellow, shared an update on progress in quantum advantage candidates. The headline numbers were impressive: 5,072 two-qubit gates executed on real hardware in under 12 minutes, with classical simulation times extrapolated to 10⁷ seconds on H100 GPUs — a run-time separation that continues to widen.
But that is not the important part.
What matters is how quantum researchers are approaching progress — because the discipline they are applying is identical to the discipline that has been missing from enterprise technology deployment for three decades.
They do not declare advantage without independent verification. Gambetta specifically referenced “efficient classical verification” — a method introduced by Scott Aaronson to resolve the verification challenge. They built a way to independently confirm that the quantum system actually did what it claimed to do before calling the result valid.
They measure error rates before scaling. The progress was driven by novel calibrations that produced a 2X improvement in median CZ error rates, down to 0.13%. They did not scale first and discover errors later. They measured the errors, improved them, measured again, and only then extended the circuit complexity.
They invite external scrutiny before calling anything validated. Gambetta highlighted “increasing community feedback and review on submissions to the tracker” as a critical piece toward validated demonstrations. The quantum research community does not self-certify. It exposes its methodology, invites challenge, and treats external review as a prerequisite — not an afterthought.
They explicitly limit claims to narrow, verifiable problem classes. No one in quantum research is claiming general-purpose advantage. They are documenting specific, bounded demonstrations where the evidence supports the claim and nothing more.
In other words, quantum physics — one of the most complex and unforgiving domains of modern science — refuses to proceed without what we would call Phase 0 readiness.
The Structural Parallel
Each element of IBM Research’s quantum discipline maps directly to a measurement dimension that the Hansen Fit Score™ was designed to assess:
Independent verification of outcomes maps to Outcome Measurement — the dimension that scores lowest across every vendor in the HFS™ assessment series because no major ProcureTech vendor publishes independently verified implementation success rates. Quantum researchers refuse to claim advantage without classical verification. ProcureTech vendors claim transformation the day the contract is signed.
Error measurement before scaling maps to Diagnostic Scoring — the practice of measuring structural conditions, identifying where gaps concentrate, and addressing them before proceeding. Gambetta’s team achieved a 2X improvement in error rates not by scaling faster but by calibrating more precisely. That is the Phase 0 sequence: measure, identify, address, then proceed.
External scrutiny before validation maps to the RAM 2025™ methodology — multimodel consensus, independent evidence sourcing, exposed and repeatable analysis. The quantum community does not self-certify its results. Neither does the HFS™. Every assessment in the Hansen Fit Score™ Vendor Assessment Series is built on independently sourced evidence, multimodel validation, and a methodology that is published, not proprietary. Exposed. Explainable. Repeatable.
Bounded, specific claims maps to the HFS™ editorial policy of deferring assessment on vendors with insufficient longitudinal evidence. The Hansen Models™ framework does not assess vendors whose evidence base is too thin to support defensible conclusions — the same discipline that prevents quantum researchers from claiming advantage in domains where the verification methodology does not yet exist.
The parallel is not cosmetic. It is structural. Both domains arrived at the same conclusion independently: capability without verified readiness produces compounding, invisible failure.
Enterprise AI and ProcureTech Did the Opposite
Now contrast that with how enterprise technology has been adopted for three decades.
For 27 years, Procurement Insights has tracked a persistent reality: approximately 80% of ProcureTech and enterprise technology initiatives fail to deliver their intended outcomes. Not because the technology lacked capability — but because organizations skipped readiness.
They bought first. They implemented second. They discovered governance, ownership, and accountability gaps last. Only then did failure recognition arrive — often 24 to 36 months after go-live, followed by leadership turnover 12 to 24 months after that.
The Hansen Fit Score™ exists precisely because capability without readiness produces predictable failure. And the longitudinal data shows that this is not anecdotal — it is structural. It has persisted across five technology eras: ERP, e-Procurement, Cloud/SaaS, Digital Transformation, and now AI/Agentic. The platforms improved with every generation. The failure rate did not move.
Quantum physics had no choice but to learn the readiness lesson early. Nature does not tolerate hand-waving. A quantum system either behaves within defined tolerances, or it fails — and the failure is immediate, measurable, and undeniable.
Enterprise procurement has had the luxury of delayed consequences. Implementation failures take years to surface. Accountability arrives late. The connection between skipped readiness and failed outcomes is obscured by time, complexity, and organizational politics. But the mechanism is the same. The physics is just more honest about the timeline.
Phase 0 Is Not Caution. It Is Engineering Discipline.
Quantum physicists do not delay progress because they are conservative. They delay progress because they understand that unmeasured risk compounds invisibly — and that scaling before verification does not accelerate outcomes. It accelerates failure at scale.
Phase 0 applies the same discipline to enterprise systems:
Who owns decisions at the point of action? How are errors detected, logged, and corrected? What conditions must exist before scaling is safe? Which risks are fatal versus survivable? Has the organization measured its capacity to absorb what it is purchasing?
Skipping those questions does not accelerate transformation. It accelerates accountability.
Why This Matters Now
We are entering an AI and agentic systems cycle that is more powerful and more consequential than anything procurement has faced. These systems do not just recommend — they act. Autonomous sourcing agents, AI-driven contract execution, predictive spend allocation — these are not reports that a human reviews. They are decisions that execute in real time with operational consequences.
The governance requirements for agentic AI are fundamentally different from any previous technology cycle. And the dual-cycle convergence — the accountability phase of Digital Transformation colliding with the hype phase of AI/Agentic, with no gap between them — means that organizations are being asked to adopt the most complex technology in procurement history while still carrying unresolved outcomes from the previous generation.
Quantum research shows the responsible path forward:
Prove trust before claiming advantage. Verify outcomes before scaling capability. Establish readiness before declaring success.
Physics had no choice but to learn this lesson early. Enterprise procurement still does — but the window is narrowing.
The Quiet Confirmation
Quantum computing is not ready for enterprise deployment — and no serious researcher pretends otherwise. That honesty is not a weakness. It is why progress is real. It is why Gambetta can publish progress updates with specific, verifiable claims rather than marketing narratives. It is why the quantum community’s credibility is increasing while enterprise technology’s credibility — measured by the persistent 80% failure rate — has not moved in three decades.
The same principle applies here.
Phase 0 does not slow transformation. It makes transformation survivable — for organizations and for the leaders accountable for outcomes.
Quantum physics did not invent Phase 0. It simply confirmed that every system capable of real impact must earn readiness before it earns trust.
And that has always been the point.
Executive Takeaway
Quantum physics offers an unexpected but powerful validation of the Phase 0 approach: systems with extraordinary capability are not deployed until readiness, verification, and error boundaries are understood. Quantum researchers refuse to scale without independent validation, repeatability, and governance because the cost of failure is absolute. Enterprise AI and ProcureTech initiatives fail for the opposite reason — they scale capability before establishing organizational readiness. Phase 0 is not a brake on innovation; it is the engineering discipline that determines whether innovation survives contact with reality. Leaders who treat readiness as optional are not accelerating transformation — they are accelerating accountability.
The structural parallel between IBM Research’s quantum verification discipline and the Phase 0 readiness framework was identified by Don Osborn, former IBM executive and member of the Hansen Models™ Advisory Team. When pattern recognition comes from someone who spent their career inside the research culture being referenced, the observation carries a different weight than an analogy.
Jon Hansen is the founder of Hansen Models™ and creator of the Hansen Fit Score™ and Hansen Method™. He has spent 42 years in high-tech and procurement, including government-funded SR&ED research that achieved 97.3% delivery accuracy over seven consecutive years — by measuring readiness before deployment.
Hansen Fit Score™ assessments are available on request . Currently published vendor assessments: SAP/SAP Ariba, Coupa, Zycus, JAGGAER, and Oracle. Practitioner readiness assessments are available through direct engagement. Annual subscriptions and individual reports at the Hansen Models™ storefront.
-30-
Procurement Insights
Quantum Physics Confirms the Hansen Models™ Phase 0 Approach
Posted on February 21, 2026
0
When IBM Research’s quantum verification discipline mirrors a procurement readiness framework — and a former IBM executive is the one who notices — the parallel is worth examining.
There is a quiet lesson emerging from an unexpected place — quantum physics — and it reinforces something Procurement Insights has been documenting for more than two decades.
Not about speed. Not about scale. Not about commercial readiness.
About discipline before deployment.
The connection was first identified by Don Osborn, former IBM executive and Hansen Models™ Advisory Team member, who recognized the structural parallel between IBM Research’s quantum verification discipline and the Phase 0 readiness framework. When someone who spent their career inside IBM’s research culture reads a quantum progress update from the Director of IBM Research and immediately sees the same methodology being applied to an entirely different domain — that is not a metaphor. That is pattern recognition from someone who has lived on both sides of the equation.
What Quantum Researchers Are Actually Doing
In February 2026, Jay Gambetta, Director of IBM Research and IBM Fellow, shared an update on progress in quantum advantage candidates. The headline numbers were impressive: 5,072 two-qubit gates executed on real hardware in under 12 minutes, with classical simulation times extrapolated to 10⁷ seconds on H100 GPUs — a run-time separation that continues to widen.
But that is not the important part.
What matters is how quantum researchers are approaching progress — because the discipline they are applying is identical to the discipline that has been missing from enterprise technology deployment for three decades.
They do not declare advantage without independent verification. Gambetta specifically referenced “efficient classical verification” — a method introduced by Scott Aaronson to resolve the verification challenge. They built a way to independently confirm that the quantum system actually did what it claimed to do before calling the result valid.
They measure error rates before scaling. The progress was driven by novel calibrations that produced a 2X improvement in median CZ error rates, down to 0.13%. They did not scale first and discover errors later. They measured the errors, improved them, measured again, and only then extended the circuit complexity.
They invite external scrutiny before calling anything validated. Gambetta highlighted “increasing community feedback and review on submissions to the tracker” as a critical piece toward validated demonstrations. The quantum research community does not self-certify. It exposes its methodology, invites challenge, and treats external review as a prerequisite — not an afterthought.
They explicitly limit claims to narrow, verifiable problem classes. No one in quantum research is claiming general-purpose advantage. They are documenting specific, bounded demonstrations where the evidence supports the claim and nothing more.
In other words, quantum physics — one of the most complex and unforgiving domains of modern science — refuses to proceed without what we would call Phase 0 readiness.
The Structural Parallel
Each element of IBM Research’s quantum discipline maps directly to a measurement dimension that the Hansen Fit Score™ was designed to assess:
Independent verification of outcomes maps to Outcome Measurement — the dimension that scores lowest across every vendor in the HFS™ assessment series because no major ProcureTech vendor publishes independently verified implementation success rates. Quantum researchers refuse to claim advantage without classical verification. ProcureTech vendors claim transformation the day the contract is signed.
Error measurement before scaling maps to Diagnostic Scoring — the practice of measuring structural conditions, identifying where gaps concentrate, and addressing them before proceeding. Gambetta’s team achieved a 2X improvement in error rates not by scaling faster but by calibrating more precisely. That is the Phase 0 sequence: measure, identify, address, then proceed.
External scrutiny before validation maps to the RAM 2025™ methodology — multimodel consensus, independent evidence sourcing, exposed and repeatable analysis. The quantum community does not self-certify its results. Neither does the HFS™. Every assessment in the Hansen Fit Score™ Vendor Assessment Series is built on independently sourced evidence, multimodel validation, and a methodology that is published, not proprietary. Exposed. Explainable. Repeatable.
Bounded, specific claims maps to the HFS™ editorial policy of deferring assessment on vendors with insufficient longitudinal evidence. The Hansen Models™ framework does not assess vendors whose evidence base is too thin to support defensible conclusions — the same discipline that prevents quantum researchers from claiming advantage in domains where the verification methodology does not yet exist.
The parallel is not cosmetic. It is structural. Both domains arrived at the same conclusion independently: capability without verified readiness produces compounding, invisible failure.
Enterprise AI and ProcureTech Did the Opposite
Now contrast that with how enterprise technology has been adopted for three decades.
For 27 years, Procurement Insights has tracked a persistent reality: approximately 80% of ProcureTech and enterprise technology initiatives fail to deliver their intended outcomes. Not because the technology lacked capability — but because organizations skipped readiness.
They bought first. They implemented second. They discovered governance, ownership, and accountability gaps last. Only then did failure recognition arrive — often 24 to 36 months after go-live, followed by leadership turnover 12 to 24 months after that.
The Hansen Fit Score™ exists precisely because capability without readiness produces predictable failure. And the longitudinal data shows that this is not anecdotal — it is structural. It has persisted across five technology eras: ERP, e-Procurement, Cloud/SaaS, Digital Transformation, and now AI/Agentic. The platforms improved with every generation. The failure rate did not move.
Quantum physics had no choice but to learn the readiness lesson early. Nature does not tolerate hand-waving. A quantum system either behaves within defined tolerances, or it fails — and the failure is immediate, measurable, and undeniable.
Enterprise procurement has had the luxury of delayed consequences. Implementation failures take years to surface. Accountability arrives late. The connection between skipped readiness and failed outcomes is obscured by time, complexity, and organizational politics. But the mechanism is the same. The physics is just more honest about the timeline.
Phase 0 Is Not Caution. It Is Engineering Discipline.
Quantum physicists do not delay progress because they are conservative. They delay progress because they understand that unmeasured risk compounds invisibly — and that scaling before verification does not accelerate outcomes. It accelerates failure at scale.
Phase 0 applies the same discipline to enterprise systems:
Who owns decisions at the point of action? How are errors detected, logged, and corrected? What conditions must exist before scaling is safe? Which risks are fatal versus survivable? Has the organization measured its capacity to absorb what it is purchasing?
Skipping those questions does not accelerate transformation. It accelerates accountability.
Why This Matters Now
We are entering an AI and agentic systems cycle that is more powerful and more consequential than anything procurement has faced. These systems do not just recommend — they act. Autonomous sourcing agents, AI-driven contract execution, predictive spend allocation — these are not reports that a human reviews. They are decisions that execute in real time with operational consequences.
The governance requirements for agentic AI are fundamentally different from any previous technology cycle. And the dual-cycle convergence — the accountability phase of Digital Transformation colliding with the hype phase of AI/Agentic, with no gap between them — means that organizations are being asked to adopt the most complex technology in procurement history while still carrying unresolved outcomes from the previous generation.
Quantum research shows the responsible path forward:
Prove trust before claiming advantage. Verify outcomes before scaling capability. Establish readiness before declaring success.
Physics had no choice but to learn this lesson early. Enterprise procurement still does — but the window is narrowing.
The Quiet Confirmation
Quantum computing is not ready for enterprise deployment — and no serious researcher pretends otherwise. That honesty is not a weakness. It is why progress is real. It is why Gambetta can publish progress updates with specific, verifiable claims rather than marketing narratives. It is why the quantum community’s credibility is increasing while enterprise technology’s credibility — measured by the persistent 80% failure rate — has not moved in three decades.
The same principle applies here.
Phase 0 does not slow transformation. It makes transformation survivable — for organizations and for the leaders accountable for outcomes.
Quantum physics did not invent Phase 0. It simply confirmed that every system capable of real impact must earn readiness before it earns trust.
And that has always been the point.
The structural parallel between IBM Research’s quantum verification discipline and the Phase 0 readiness framework was identified by Don Osborn, former IBM executive and member of the Hansen Models™ Advisory Team. When pattern recognition comes from someone who spent their career inside the research culture being referenced, the observation carries a different weight than an analogy.
Jon Hansen is the founder of Hansen Models™ and creator of the Hansen Fit Score™ and Hansen Method™. He has spent 42 years in high-tech and procurement, including government-funded SR&ED research that achieved 97.3% delivery accuracy over seven consecutive years — by measuring readiness before deployment.
Hansen Fit Score™ assessments are available on request . Currently published vendor assessments: SAP/SAP Ariba, Coupa, Zycus, JAGGAER, and Oracle. Practitioner readiness assessments are available through direct engagement. Annual subscriptions and individual reports at the Hansen Models™ storefront.
-30-
Share this:
Related