Jon W. Hansen, FCIPS | Procurement Insights | Hansen Models™
Hansen finds the hidden strands, inside and outside your enterprise, that decide whether your people and AI strategy succeeds, from pilot to production.
Earlier this year, a member of our Senior Advisory Board presented our work on AI governance to an audience in the UK. The response was generous. People were impressed with the thinking, and with what we had written.
Then came the question: “This is great insight. But we have no idea what you do. What is it, exactly?”
It was a fair question, and a useful one. So here is the answer.
What we do
Hansen identifies the hidden strands within and outside your enterprise that determine how effectively and efficiently your people and AI strategy moves from pilot to production, and resolves the disconnects between them before they decide the outcome.
These are not just the strands you already know about. They are the shadow operations, the workarounds, the unapproved AI tools, and the strands no one has thought to look for. Every enterprise has them, and they will keep it from the results it expects. They are not just unique. They are hidden.
Before you set a strategy, and before you put in a single AI tool, you should know those strands. They are the foundation on which AI, or any technology, past, present or future, is built. Without that understanding, the likelihood of failure is high.
Where it comes from
It started in 1983, my first year in technology, programming in dBASE II. I would change one line of code, and another line, somewhere else, that had been working perfectly would stop. The two lines seemed to have nothing to do with each other. But they were connected, and they were competing: what one needed, the other undid.
That was the first time I saw a disconnect between strands. I formulated it as a theory in 1998, applied it in a live operation, and named it in print in 2008: Strand Commonality™. The lines of code became people, departments, suppliers and, now, AI agents. The disconnect is the same.
This is not process mapping
It would be easy to read that and think: that is what process mapping is for. Map how everyone fits together, and draw the sequence. But a process map is drawn forward, from the plan, one step after another, showing only what someone thought to design in. Strands work differently. They are traced backward, from the outcome. They cross departments and company walls. They move and interact rather than sitting in sequence. And the ones that matter most, how people are measured, who really holds the authority, the workarounds and the unapproved tools, never appear on the map at all.
Four cases show the difference. In each, the map showed one thing, and we found the strands it left out.
1998: a parts operation. Next-day delivery was running at about half the time, against a 90 percent target. The process map looked complete: service to buyers to finance to suppliers to couriers to customs, one step after another. We found the strands by asking a question nobody else had asked: what time of day do the orders come in? The answer, 4 p.m., led to the rest: staff measured on calls answered, suppliers with no cross-border experience, and shipping costs nobody recorded.
What the diagram shows versus what actually happens: the same six functions, one drawn as a sequence, one as it operates. Illustrative.
2026: Hurricane Isaias. In our lab following the storm through the Gulf Coast fuel supply, the supply map was a straight line: crude, refinery, pipeline, terminal, distributor, your operation. The map had no place for people or policy. We named policy as a strand to watch on 8 October, before landfall. When a sanctions decision on diesel was announced hours before the storm came ashore, the lab was already watching for it.
What the supply map shows versus what the storm crosses: one route with fixed handoffs, against the same supply as it actually operates. Illustrative.
2026: Amazon. On paper, Amazon is one supplier. Tracing its strands, we found something different: procurement manages Amazon Business, IT manages AWS, logistics manages delivery, and the AI team manages the models it runs on AWS. Four contracts, four owners, and one change at Amazon crosses all four strands at once.
One supplier on paper versus several strands in practice. Illustrative.
2026: the straws debate. Here, we went one step further. The plastic camp and the paper camp had each mapped their own strands, and each was right about them. Laid on top of each other, both still missed the same five, which we identified: how many straws are used, where the waste actually goes, who depends on them, whose priorities count, and what each study left out. Once those strands were identified and connected, a resolution appeared that neither camp had proposed. Read the full case.
What each side saw, the five strands both missed, and the same strands moving in step once they were connected. Illustrative.
And the same disconnect is everywhere today: nearly two-thirds of senior decision-makers admit to using AI tools their own organizations have not approved. The process map says one thing. The real-world operation does another.
Our work is to find those strands, show how they connect, and resolve the disconnect, so that the people and the AI in your business are working from the same reality.
What we do not do
We do not sell software. We do not replace your systems or your people. And we do not remove or alter your strands. Cost still matters. Speed still matters. Every function’s concerns still matter.
What we create is the way those strands can best work together, including the ones no one has identified yet. That is where we add the greatest value: the unidentified strands are the ones deciding the outcome while no one is watching. We call the result Strand Harmonization™.
How it starts
Most engagements begin with one decision: an outcome that is falling short, or a decision you are about to scale. In two weeks, through Hansen’s Agentic Governance Readiness (AGR) Snapshot, we trace the strands behind it and pressure-test the decision against how your operation actually runs. You receive a decision-authority map, a pressure-test finding and a readiness reading: proceed, fix first, or stop.
Then, because strands keep changing as people, incentives and suppliers change, we keep reading them for you, on a continuous basis.
The short answer
So, what exactly does Hansen do?
We find the hidden strands, inside and outside your enterprise, that decide whether your people and AI strategy succeeds, from pilot to production, and we resolve the disconnects before they decide the outcome.
What Exactly Does Hansen Do?
Posted on November 9, 2026
0
Jon W. Hansen, FCIPS | Procurement Insights | Hansen Models™
Hansen finds the hidden strands, inside and outside your enterprise, that decide whether your people and AI strategy succeeds, from pilot to production.
Earlier this year, a member of our Senior Advisory Board presented our work on AI governance to an audience in the UK. The response was generous. People were impressed with the thinking, and with what we had written.
Then came the question: “This is great insight. But we have no idea what you do. What is it, exactly?”
It was a fair question, and a useful one. So here is the answer.
What we do
Hansen identifies the hidden strands within and outside your enterprise that determine how effectively and efficiently your people and AI strategy moves from pilot to production, and resolves the disconnects between them before they decide the outcome.
These are not just the strands you already know about. They are the shadow operations, the workarounds, the unapproved AI tools, and the strands no one has thought to look for. Every enterprise has them, and they will keep it from the results it expects. They are not just unique. They are hidden.
Before you set a strategy, and before you put in a single AI tool, you should know those strands. They are the foundation on which AI, or any technology, past, present or future, is built. Without that understanding, the likelihood of failure is high.
Where it comes from
It started in 1983, my first year in technology, programming in dBASE II. I would change one line of code, and another line, somewhere else, that had been working perfectly would stop. The two lines seemed to have nothing to do with each other. But they were connected, and they were competing: what one needed, the other undid.
That was the first time I saw a disconnect between strands. I formulated it as a theory in 1998, applied it in a live operation, and named it in print in 2008: Strand Commonality™. The lines of code became people, departments, suppliers and, now, AI agents. The disconnect is the same.
This is not process mapping
It would be easy to read that and think: that is what process mapping is for. Map how everyone fits together, and draw the sequence. But a process map is drawn forward, from the plan, one step after another, showing only what someone thought to design in. Strands work differently. They are traced backward, from the outcome. They cross departments and company walls. They move and interact rather than sitting in sequence. And the ones that matter most, how people are measured, who really holds the authority, the workarounds and the unapproved tools, never appear on the map at all.
Four cases show the difference. In each, the map showed one thing, and we found the strands it left out.
1998: a parts operation. Next-day delivery was running at about half the time, against a 90 percent target. The process map looked complete: service to buyers to finance to suppliers to couriers to customs, one step after another. We found the strands by asking a question nobody else had asked: what time of day do the orders come in? The answer, 4 p.m., led to the rest: staff measured on calls answered, suppliers with no cross-border experience, and shipping costs nobody recorded.
What the diagram shows versus what actually happens: the same six functions, one drawn as a sequence, one as it operates. Illustrative.
2026: Hurricane Isaias. In our lab following the storm through the Gulf Coast fuel supply, the supply map was a straight line: crude, refinery, pipeline, terminal, distributor, your operation. The map had no place for people or policy. We named policy as a strand to watch on 8 October, before landfall. When a sanctions decision on diesel was announced hours before the storm came ashore, the lab was already watching for it.
What the supply map shows versus what the storm crosses: one route with fixed handoffs, against the same supply as it actually operates. Illustrative.
2026: Amazon. On paper, Amazon is one supplier. Tracing its strands, we found something different: procurement manages Amazon Business, IT manages AWS, logistics manages delivery, and the AI team manages the models it runs on AWS. Four contracts, four owners, and one change at Amazon crosses all four strands at once.
One supplier on paper versus several strands in practice. Illustrative.
2026: the straws debate. Here, we went one step further. The plastic camp and the paper camp had each mapped their own strands, and each was right about them. Laid on top of each other, both still missed the same five, which we identified: how many straws are used, where the waste actually goes, who depends on them, whose priorities count, and what each study left out. Once those strands were identified and connected, a resolution appeared that neither camp had proposed. Read the full case.
What each side saw, the five strands both missed, and the same strands moving in step once they were connected. Illustrative.
And the same disconnect is everywhere today: nearly two-thirds of senior decision-makers admit to using AI tools their own organizations have not approved. The process map says one thing. The real-world operation does another.
Our work is to find those strands, show how they connect, and resolve the disconnect, so that the people and the AI in your business are working from the same reality.
What we do not do
We do not sell software. We do not replace your systems or your people. And we do not remove or alter your strands. Cost still matters. Speed still matters. Every function’s concerns still matter.
What we create is the way those strands can best work together, including the ones no one has identified yet. That is where we add the greatest value: the unidentified strands are the ones deciding the outcome while no one is watching. We call the result Strand Harmonization™.
How it starts
Most engagements begin with one decision: an outcome that is falling short, or a decision you are about to scale. In two weeks, through Hansen’s Agentic Governance Readiness (AGR) Snapshot, we trace the strands behind it and pressure-test the decision against how your operation actually runs. You receive a decision-authority map, a pressure-test finding and a readiness reading: proceed, fix first, or stop.
Then, because strands keep changing as people, incentives and suppliers change, we keep reading them for you, on a continuous basis.
The short answer
So, what exactly does Hansen do?
We find the hidden strands, inside and outside your enterprise, that decide whether your people and AI strategy succeeds, from pilot to production, and we resolve the disconnects before they decide the outcome.
What strands are you missing? Contact us at HPT@hansenprocurement.com to review one decision.
Truth Is Believing. Accuracy Is Knowing. Outcome Is Proof.™
-30-
Related
Share this:
Like this:
Related