Team Intelligence Report

Tulane University COO Division

DAIC Working Style Chemistry and Collective AI Mastery Assessment for 9 senior leaders.

📊 9 Team Members Assessed 📅 February 2026 🏛 Office of the COO

Team Snapshot

A high-level view of your team's behavioral composition and AI readiness.

4
A-Dominant
2
D-Dominant
2
C-Dominant
1
I-Dominant
L3
Team Median AI Level
L7
Highest Solid (Wong)
6 of 9
Show Skip Patterns
L2
Lowest Solid Level
DAIC Headline
Administrator-heavy team. Four of nine leaders default to process, structure, and risk management. Only one person (Jai Shankar) leads with Innovator energy. The team will maintain standards effectively but may resist or slow-walk change initiatives that lack a detailed implementation plan.
Innovator dimension is critically underrepresented. With just one I-dominant member and several people with I as a blind spot, the team's weakest collective muscle is the one that generates new possibilities, challenges assumptions, and drives strategic change.
AI Mastery Headline
The team's center of gravity sits at Level 2-3. Six of nine members operate reliably at Level 3 or below. Only one person (Noel Wong) has a solid Level 7 foundation. This team is not yet ready for independent AI workflow adoption without structured training.
Level 5 is the universal gap. Seven of nine team members show zero or near-zero density at Level 5 (multi-step workflows). This is the capability that separates personal AI use from organizational AI systems. Training must target this level specifically.

DAIC Team Chemistry

How your team's working styles interact, complement, and create friction.

Dominant Type Distribution
4
AdministratorPatriarca, O'Rourke, Vitrano, Norton
2
DoerBlair David, Will Ferbos
2
ConnectorMichael Griffith, Noel Wong
1
InnovatorJai Shankar
Individual DAIC Score Breakdown
Name
Score Distribution (D / A / I / C)
Profile
Blind Spot
⚡ Natural Friction Points
D vs C Tension
Blair David ↔ Michael Griffith
Blair's Doer urgency collides with Griffith's Connector instinct to check in with people before acting. Blair may interpret Griffith's consensus-seeking as stalling. Griffith may read Blair's directness as dismissive.
A vs I Tension
Tanya O'Rourke ↔ Jai Shankar
O'Rourke's process discipline meets Shankar's impulse to test alternatives. She wants the plan locked down. He wants to run another experiment. Left unmanaged, this creates a cycle of proposal and rejection.
A vs I Tension
Judy Vitrano ↔ Jai Shankar
Vitrano's strong A with I as a blind spot means she may actively resist Shankar's Innovator proposals if they lack detailed implementation specifics. She evaluates risk. He evaluates opportunity. Neither instinct is wrong, but without a translator, ideas die in committee.
🤝 Natural Complements
Execution + Vision
Blair David + Jai Shankar
Blair's D-dominant execution paired with Shankar's I-dominant vision creates a build-the-future-and-ship-it dynamic. Blair grounds Shankar's ideas in deliverables. Shankar keeps Blair from optimizing the wrong thing.
Structure + Relationships
Tanya O'Rourke + Noel Wong
O'Rourke builds the system. Wong ensures the people using it feel supported and heard. Together they create processes that actually get adopted because they're both well-designed and human-centered.
Full Spectrum
Michael Patriarca + Will Ferbos
Patriarca's balanced A-I-C with Ferbos's D-C pairing creates a duo where Patriarca provides strategic framing and Ferbos drives follow-through, while both share strong enough Connector awareness to keep stakeholders engaged.
Coverage Analysis
Innovator Gap: Only Jai Shankar carries Innovator as a dominant dimension. Three team members (O'Rourke, Vitrano, Norton) have Innovator in blind-spot or near-blind-spot territory. When Shankar is absent from a conversation, the team defaults to refining existing processes rather than questioning whether those processes serve the right goals.
Administrator Strength: Four A-dominant members means this team excels at risk management, process compliance, and quality control. Institutional standards are well-protected. The risk is over-indexing: four administrators can produce analysis paralysis when speed matters more than precision.
Connector Coverage: Two C-dominant members (Griffith, Wong) plus functional C scores from Patriarca, Shankar, and Ferbos gives the team reasonable people-awareness. This is adequate for a leadership team where relationship management matters for cross-departmental work.
Doer Distribution: Two D-dominant members (David, Ferbos) shoulder most of the execution energy. When deadlines compress, the team will lean heavily on these two. If either is overcommitted, deliverables stall because the remaining members default to planning, consulting, or ideating rather than producing output.

AI Mastery Collective

Where your team stands on the 10-level AI capability scale, including foundation gaps and training priorities.

Highest Solid Level vs. Ceiling Level per Person

Solid bar = reliable capability. Dashed line = conceptual exposure ceiling. The gap between them is where training creates the fastest ROI.

Density Heatmap (Levels 1–9)

Darker cells = stronger density at that level. Red-highlighted cells indicate skip patterns: gaps below a person's ceiling.

Team Distribution by Highest Solid Level
🎯 Training Priorities
Priority 1: Level 3→4 (Canvas Foundations). Five team members need AI Strategy Canvas training: blocks 1-4, knowledge base development, delimiter syntax, and reference document construction. This is the SPE foundation that makes every subsequent level possible.
Priority 2: Level 4→5 (Workflow Design). Seven team members score zero or near-zero at Level 5. Training should cover variable containers, calibrated parameters, prompt stacks, and Canvas blocks 5-9. Without multi-step workflow capability, AI remains a single-prompt tool.
Priority 3: Level 5→6 (Team Deployment). Even the most capable members (Griffith, Wong) show gaps at Level 6. Documentation, shared prompt libraries, and quality frameworks must be taught alongside workflow skills so that individual capability translates to organizational capability.
🏆 Internal AI Anchors
Primary Anchor
Noel Wong — Solid Level 7
Highest reliable AI capability on the team. Has built connected systems (procurement agent with Airtable API). No skip patterns. Can serve as internal champion and peer mentor for Levels 4-6 training.
Secondary Anchors
Michael Griffith & Judy Vitrano — Solid Level 5
Both demonstrate multi-step workflow thinking. Griffith has built real integrations (Airtable attendance monitoring, Canvas LMS experiments) but skips documentation. Vitrano has a complete foundation with no skips. Both can support training if their own Level 6 gaps are addressed first.
Needs Attention
O'Rourke, David, Norton — Solid Level 2
Three senior leaders still operate at conversational/iterative prompting. All three recognize advanced concepts on multiple choice but cannot yet execute structured prompts independently. These members need foundational SPE training before any workflow-level assignments.

Combined Insights

Where DAIC working style and AI mastery level intersect, and what that means for adoption strategy.

DAIC × AI Mastery Correlation Map
Observed Correlations
Connectors show the strongest AI foundations. Both C-dominant members (Wong at L7, Griffith at L5) are the team's highest-capability AI practitioners. Their people-orientation has translated into building tools that serve teams, not just themselves. Wong's procurement agent and Griffith's attendance system are both team-facing.
Administrators cluster at foundational levels. Three of four A-dominant members sit at Solid Level 2-3. Their methodical nature means they learn thoroughly but have not yet had structured training to build on. Once trained, the A-dominant members are the most likely to document, standardize, and maintain AI systems reliably.
The sole Innovator shows classic skip patterns. Jai Shankar (I-dominant, Solid L3) has conceptual exposure to Level 9 but skips Levels 5, 6, and 8. This matches the expected I-type pattern: jumping to advanced concepts before systematizing foundations. His training plan should emphasize completing mid-level capabilities before pursuing new experiments.
Adoption Strategy Recommendations
Lead with Wong, train with Vitrano. Noel Wong's L7 capability and C-dominant style makes him the ideal internal champion: he'll build systems people actually want to use. Judy Vitrano's L5 capability and A-dominant style makes her the ideal training documentation owner: she'll create the SOPs that make adoption stick.
Don't skip the COO. Patrick Norton (SVP/COO, Solid L2) sets the cultural tone for AI adoption. If leadership can't demonstrate at least Level 4 capability, the team will read AI training as optional. Norton's training should be prioritized and visible.
The Innovator gap amplifies the AI gap. With only one I-dominant member, this team lacks the natural "what if we tried this differently" energy that drives AI experimentation. Training design should deliberately include creative application exercises, not just structured methodology, so the A-dominant majority doesn't reduce AI use to another compliance checklist.
Recommended Next Steps (Prioritized)
1
Schedule SPE Canvas Foundations training for full team.Focus on AI Strategy Canvas blocks 1-4, delimiter syntax, and knowledge base construction. This closes the Level 3→4 gap for six members and reinforces foundations for the other three.
2
Establish Wong as internal AI anchor with explicit champion role.Formalize his role in peer coaching and system review. Pair him with Norton to ensure leadership visibility on AI adoption.
3
Address the Innovator gap in team decision-making rituals.Build a "challenge the premise" step into project kickoffs so the A-dominant majority doesn't default to optimizing existing processes when the situation requires a fundamentally different direction. Shankar should not be the only voice in this role.
4
Run a Level 5 workflow workshop within 30 days of Canvas training.Multi-step workflow design is the universal gap. Have each team member bring one real recurring task and build a prompt stack for it during the session. Griffith and Vitrano can co-facilitate with Wong.
5
Re-assess in 90 days using the same instruments.Measure whether the team's solid-level median has moved from L3 to L5, and whether skip patterns have closed. Use the delta as the primary training ROI metric.