For 18 years, Procurement Insights has documented the patterns that determine whether technology investments succeed or fail. The audience for that research has always been broader than procurement — but the framing has not always reflected that.
That changes now.
What makes this moment different from a simple editorial announcement is that the archive already contains the evidence. In 2011, I stood in front of procurement professionals and told them directly: you need to think like a CFO and act like a CIO. Slides 10 and 11 of the Changing Face of Procurement seminar said it plainly. The 2007 Aberdeen Survey I cited then showed less than 20% of CFOs considered CPOs as having a very positive impact on competitiveness. That finding is still consistent with what Deloitte is documenting today.
The CFO and CIO argument was not new in 2024. It was documented in 2011. What is new is that the failure rate that argument was designed to address has not moved — and the current AI cycle is making the governance gap harder to see, not easier.
The attendees from those sessions said it better than I can:
Dianne Mowat, Local Vice President, Society of Energy Professionals: “Jon didn’t promote the latest flavour of procurement — instead he asked us to use common sense and not allow technology to define our business process. How refreshing.”
Sal Nazarali, C.P.P.: “Jon made it clear that the supply chain industry is much more complex and generalizations are a thing of the past. His seminar was very informative, interactive, and armed attendees to go back to their existing roles and pursue supply chain excellence.”
Sam Bhaskar, MCIPS, CMILT — writing in September 2023, looking back at the 2011 presentation: “Your insights were ahead of the curve, much like the evolution we’ve seen in procurement. Your foresight set the stage for this transformation.”
Tom Napier co-signed it the same day: “Jon Hansen was well ahead of this part of the supply chain well over ten years ago.”
The current CTO of McDonald’s Canada was in the room in 2008. Practitioners from John Deere, WorleyParsons, and IKO Industries attended those sessions. The PMAC program coordinator noted that students often traveled outside their zones to attend.
These were not procurement-only conversations. They were governance conversations that happened to take place in a procurement room. The archive reflects that — and it always has.
Beginning immediately, Procurement Insights will publish dedicated content for two audiences who have always been central to the outcomes the archive documents but peripheral to how it has been presented:
For CIOs — The Architecture Accountability Brief
When the system is confident and the organization is not ready, the CIO owns the gap.
The CIO’s problem is not procurement. It is whether the AI and technology architecture they approved can actually be absorbed by the organization they are responsible for. Every post in this section speaks to governance architecture, integration integrity, the closed-frame AI critique, and the question of whether the system can sustain the decisions it is producing under real-world conditions.
The posts the archive already contains — and will now surface directly for CIOs — address:
- Why MoE-based AI platforms produce confident outputs that governance architectures were not designed to absorb
- The architectural question CIOs are not asking before capital is committed
- What RAM 2025™ surfaces that the current platform generation cannot
- Why the implementation failure rate has held between 60 and 85 percent across seven technology eras — and what changes that trajectory
For CFOs — The Capital Risk Intelligence Brief
The diagnostic layer that arrives before the commitment — not after the consequences.
The CFO’s problem is capital allocation failure. They approved the budget. The ROI did not materialize. The post-mortem landed on procurement. Every post in this section speaks to investment risk, working capital exposure under disruption conditions, the cost of the governance gap, and what independent validation looks like before a capital commitment is made rather than after the consequences arrive.
The posts the archive already contains — and will now surface directly for CFOs — address:
- Why technology implementations produce post-mortems that land on procurement when the capital decision sat with finance
- How the Hormuz disruption and tariff compounding create dual-crisis conditions that working capital models were not designed to absorb
- What Phase 0™ produces that no vendor-aligned analyst report will: a Stop signal before the commitment, not after the implementation fails
- The 28-year evidentiary record that connects the 1998 DND proof point to the current AI governance gap
What both sections share
The same 18-year archive. The same zero vendor sponsorships. The same RAM 2025™ multimodel validation framework. The same Phase 0™ organizational readiness diagnostic. The same governing principle that has been consistent since 1998: decisions should be shaped by real-world feedback, not frozen assumptions.
Different entry point. Different language. Different commercial trigger.
The methodology does not change. The independence does not change. The translation does.
If you are a CIO or CFO who has been reading this blog from the procurement angle, you now have a direct line into the content that was always relevant to your decisions — and always documented before the consequences arrived.
In 2011, the room was full of procurement professionals. The argument was about your decisions.
It still is.
Jon Hansen — Founder, Hansen Models™ · Procurement Insights · procureinsights.com 18 years · 3,300+ documents · Zero vendor sponsorships · Zero paid analyst relationships
Ready to close your Authority Gap?
Book a 30-Minute Readiness Conversation with Jon Hansen — a preliminary diagnostic discussion to identify whether a Phase 0™ assessment is the right next step for your initiative. No sales pitch. Just an honest conversation about where your organization sits on the readiness spectrum.
→ Book your 30-Minute Readiness Conversation
hansenprocurement.com
-30-
Procurement Insights 
Expanding the Procurement Insights Archive: Two New Sections for CIOs and CFOs
Posted on March 27, 2026
0
For 18 years, Procurement Insights has documented the patterns that determine whether technology investments succeed or fail. The audience for that research has always been broader than procurement — but the framing has not always reflected that.
That changes now.
What makes this moment different from a simple editorial announcement is that the archive already contains the evidence. In 2011, I stood in front of procurement professionals and told them directly: you need to think like a CFO and act like a CIO. Slides 10 and 11 of the Changing Face of Procurement seminar said it plainly. The 2007 Aberdeen Survey I cited then showed less than 20% of CFOs considered CPOs as having a very positive impact on competitiveness. That finding is still consistent with what Deloitte is documenting today.
The CFO and CIO argument was not new in 2024. It was documented in 2011. What is new is that the failure rate that argument was designed to address has not moved — and the current AI cycle is making the governance gap harder to see, not easier.
The attendees from those sessions said it better than I can:
Dianne Mowat, Local Vice President, Society of Energy Professionals: “Jon didn’t promote the latest flavour of procurement — instead he asked us to use common sense and not allow technology to define our business process. How refreshing.”
Sal Nazarali, C.P.P.: “Jon made it clear that the supply chain industry is much more complex and generalizations are a thing of the past. His seminar was very informative, interactive, and armed attendees to go back to their existing roles and pursue supply chain excellence.”
Sam Bhaskar, MCIPS, CMILT — writing in September 2023, looking back at the 2011 presentation: “Your insights were ahead of the curve, much like the evolution we’ve seen in procurement. Your foresight set the stage for this transformation.”
Tom Napier co-signed it the same day: “Jon Hansen was well ahead of this part of the supply chain well over ten years ago.”
The current CTO of McDonald’s Canada was in the room in 2008. Practitioners from John Deere, WorleyParsons, and IKO Industries attended those sessions. The PMAC program coordinator noted that students often traveled outside their zones to attend.
These were not procurement-only conversations. They were governance conversations that happened to take place in a procurement room. The archive reflects that — and it always has.
Beginning immediately, Procurement Insights will publish dedicated content for two audiences who have always been central to the outcomes the archive documents but peripheral to how it has been presented:
For CIOs — The Architecture Accountability Brief
When the system is confident and the organization is not ready, the CIO owns the gap.
The CIO’s problem is not procurement. It is whether the AI and technology architecture they approved can actually be absorbed by the organization they are responsible for. Every post in this section speaks to governance architecture, integration integrity, the closed-frame AI critique, and the question of whether the system can sustain the decisions it is producing under real-world conditions.
The posts the archive already contains — and will now surface directly for CIOs — address:
For CFOs — The Capital Risk Intelligence Brief
The diagnostic layer that arrives before the commitment — not after the consequences.
The CFO’s problem is capital allocation failure. They approved the budget. The ROI did not materialize. The post-mortem landed on procurement. Every post in this section speaks to investment risk, working capital exposure under disruption conditions, the cost of the governance gap, and what independent validation looks like before a capital commitment is made rather than after the consequences arrive.
The posts the archive already contains — and will now surface directly for CFOs — address:
What both sections share
The same 18-year archive. The same zero vendor sponsorships. The same RAM 2025™ multimodel validation framework. The same Phase 0™ organizational readiness diagnostic. The same governing principle that has been consistent since 1998: decisions should be shaped by real-world feedback, not frozen assumptions.
Different entry point. Different language. Different commercial trigger.
The methodology does not change. The independence does not change. The translation does.
If you are a CIO or CFO who has been reading this blog from the procurement angle, you now have a direct line into the content that was always relevant to your decisions — and always documented before the consequences arrived.
In 2011, the room was full of procurement professionals. The argument was about your decisions.
It still is.
Jon Hansen — Founder, Hansen Models™ · Procurement Insights · procureinsights.com 18 years · 3,300+ documents · Zero vendor sponsorships · Zero paid analyst relationships
Ready to close your Authority Gap?
Book a 30-Minute Readiness Conversation with Jon Hansen — a preliminary diagnostic discussion to identify whether a Phase 0™ assessment is the right next step for your initiative. No sales pitch. Just an honest conversation about where your organization sits on the readiness spectrum.
→ Book your 30-Minute Readiness Conversation
hansenprocurement.com
-30-
Share this:
Related