← Dashboard Sprint Two: Map and Decide →

Sprint One: Discover and Diagnose

Septapod Financial AI Strategy Engagement

Pre-Work & Survey Design

Collect background documents and design the executive team survey before the engagement starts. Questions draw from PAIR Guidebook Chapter 1 and McKenna Foundation Assessment.

Module info Pre-work + Weeks 1-2 13h facilitator 2.5h CEO 30min per exec 0h board
When: Pre-engagement through end of Week 2 of Sprint One. Governance Readiness Assessment ships at end of Week 2 so Sprint Three pilots have confirmed authority to launch.

Time per person

Facilitator (Brent) 13 h ~90min sync + ~11.5h async (reading, survey design, interview prep, v0.5 drafting, synthesis)
CEO 2.5 h 30min kickoff + 30min survey + 60min strategic identity & AI posture interview + 30min Governance Readiness Assessment review
Each senior exec 30 min Async survey only · cumulative depends on team size
Each board member n/a Not engaged in this module

What actually happens

Brent reads context documents (AI Policy, Strategic Plan, vendor list, recent board materials). Designs a digital survey in Tally (13 to 15 questions, calibrated to 30 minutes) and sends to the CEO + the executive team with a 7-day window. Holds a 30-min kickoff with the CEO and a 60-min 1:1 interview that covers both AI posture (IBM five-mindset items) and strategic identity (sacred cows, unwritten paradigms, lessons from past events, legacy). Drafts a Governance Readiness Assessment in Week 1-2 by testing the existing AI Policy's authority structures against operational reality. The CEO reviews by end of Week 2. Brent writes a 2-page synthesis read-out covering survey themes, foundation baseline, and the strategic identity signals worth carrying forward.

Through-line

Generates
Context document inventory. Executive survey responses (comfort, impact, concerns, automation-vs-augmentation matrix). Foundation readiness baseline (4 McKenna pillars). CEO strategic identity + AI posture signal (Tighe identity questions + IBM five-mindset diagnostic). Governance Readiness Assessment, a document testing the AI Policy's existing authorities: which are operational, which need support, and what gaps exist between policy and practice.
Value to Septapod
Surfaces silent disagreement in the exec team about AI direction. Names what Septapod already has so the engagement builds on it rather than reinventing. Distinguishes the CEO's strategic posture from the team's collective signal. Unblocks Sprint Three action by naming authority before pilots are designed.
How Septapod uses it
Survey themes shape which workshop activities to emphasize. Foundation gaps become candidate projects for the strategic direction. The exec baseline becomes a marker for measuring shift across the engagement. The Governance Readiness Assessment confirms which AI Policy authorities are operational before pilots begin.
Feeds into
Step 2 (vendor audit knows which exec areas are most concerned). Step 3 (foundation pillar scores carry forward). Sprint Two's task mapping uses the survey's task-level signals for function selection. Sprint Two's workshop responds to survey themes; strategic identity signals shape the "what business is Septapod really in" framing. The Sprint One diagnosis carries the governance readiness view forward. Sprint Three (pilots launch under confirmed governance authorities).

Research & methods anchors

Discovery work happens before strategic facilitation so the workshop is informed by data, not opinion. IBM CEO Study (2026) finds CEOs who actively redesign cross-functional teamwork are over 2x more likely to deliver on AI business objectives. The Governance Readiness Assessment reflects Play #1 of the same study: identify the handful of enterprise decisions that slow everything else down, confirm whether existing authorities are operational, and surface where the process needs support.

  • Google PAIR Guidebook Ch.1: user-need and success-definition framing for the exec survey
  • McKenna Foundation Assessment: 4-pillar readiness baseline (data, governance, culture, talent)
  • IBM 2026 CEO Study, Play #1 mindset items: four CEO-only AI posture questions on cross-functional collaboration, embedded workflows, long-term differentiation, and people adoption
  • Steve Tighe, Rethinking Strategy, Ch.8: four mental-model interview questions (sacred cows, paradigms, past events, legacy) that surface what makes Septapod Septapod, beyond the AI-posture frame
  • Canada Algorithmic Impact Assessment + NIST AI RMF GOVERN function: structural source for the Governance Readiness Assessment
  • NCUA Credit Union AI Resources: anchor for which existing documents to collect and supervisory expectations the governance assessment must satisfy

Document Collection Checklist

Collect these before discovery begins

Executive Team Survey

Open-ended ethnographic survey · 20-25 min per respondent · 9 core questions + 1 optional · all questions audited against Portigal taxonomy

Audience: Septapod executive team, ~7-8 senior leaders. The CEO takes the same instrument. Optionally extends to the board (Brent's call).

Format note: The platform (Google Form, Tally, etc.) is chosen at delivery time. The questions and order below are the working instrument.

Introduction (framing text, included with the survey)

Brent is preparing for the executive workshop and the per-function task mapping work in Sprint One. These questions are designed to surface how AI is actually showing up in your work today, where you see opportunities and concerns specific to your area, and how the values-based banking framework shapes your thinking. There are no right or wrong answers, and the questions intentionally ask for specific moments and examples rather than ratings. Your responses are seen by Brent and the executive team only, and they shape the Sprint One diagnosis and the workshop's strategic conversation. Estimated time: 20-25 minutes.

Section A: Your work and AI today

Section B: AI's footprint and trajectory in your area

Optional closing question

Closing (text, included with the survey)

Thank you. Brent will synthesize responses across the team and bring patterns forward in the Sprint One diagnosis and the workshop preparation. If anything you wrote prompted a longer thought, you can email it directly to Brent or surface it in your calibration session with him later in Sprint Two.

Taxonomy balance 7 questions audited 0 anti-patterns flagged 6 taxonomy types covered

Coverage: Sequence (Q1, Q3), Specific Examples (Q2, Q4, Q5), Exceptions (Q4 branch), Relationships (Q6), Open-framework (Q5), Projection anchored (Q7). Opinion-only stance dissolved.

Framework-priming on Q5: The (a)/(b)/(c) scaffolding matches the three-way tagging rubric from the Operational Task Mapping module. Resolved with an explicit escape hatch ("if none of (a)/(b)/(c) feels right, describe the relationship in your own words") so respondents who don't fit the frame are not pushed into it.

Foundation Assessment (4 Pillars)

Source: McKenna AI Strategy Canvas, Foundation Assessment

Data Infrastructure

Consider: Can you access member data across systems? Is data quality monitored? Is there a data dictionary?

Technical Capability

Consider: Who manages AI vendor relationships? Can IT evaluate AI tools independently?

Organizational Culture

Consider: How did coworkers react to Copilot rollout? Do teams feel safe trying new tools?

Governance

Consider: Is the AI policy enforced? Is there a review cadence? Who owns compliance?

CEO Interview Guide 60 min, 1:1 with the CEO · structured across the 7-stage interview arc

A real-time conversation covering the CEO's AI posture, the CEO's current view of Septapod's AI footprint, the institutional identity that constrains what AI can do here, and the CEO's projection of where this work lands. The most useful interview signals come from responses that trigger an "a-ha" reaction or a "that's ridiculous" dismissal. Write those down verbatim. The guide is a flexible reference, not a script.

DISC awareness: Customize per CEO. Match the CEO's pacing. Move to substance fast, but do not skip the threshold and kick-off entirely.

Stage 1-2: Opener (scripted, 2-3 min)

"Thanks for the time. I want to use this conversation to understand how you think about AI at Septapod, how it fits with what makes Septapod Septapod, and where you want this work to land. Sixty minutes is the rough envelope. There are no right or wrong answers; the questions are designed to surface specifics rather than ratings. I will take notes as we go, and I will follow up on anything that needs more time after we synthesize this with the team survey and the function work. Sound good?"

Logistics: confirm recording consent. Note any hard stop. Adjust on the spot if time is shorter than expected.

Stage 3: Kick-off (3-5 min)

Probes: "What changed at that point that made you start paying attention?" / "What were you reading or watching when it first felt important?"

Stage 4: Accept the Awkwardness (concrete, 8-12 min)

Probes (use only if the CEO runs dry; do not list verbatim up front): "What else?" (ask twice) / "What about vendor products?" / "What about tools your team uses day to day?" / "Shadow use anywhere?" / "Where is the Copilot rollout right now?" / "Where do you suspect AI is showing up that you don't have visibility into?"

Probes: "What did you do?" / "What did that tell you about where this work currently sits?"

Transition: "Okay. I want to shift to some questions about Septapod itself, separate from AI for a minute. Sound good?"

Stage 5: The Tipping Point. Core Questions (25-30 min)

Probes: "Who proposed it?" / "What did you say in the moment?" / "Is there a category of decisions where that comes up more than others?"

Probes: "What rules do you find yourself explaining most often?" / "Where do those rules come from?"

Probes: "What did you take from it?" / "What would you do differently this time?"

Probes: "Who tends to lead?" / "Where does coordination break down most often?" / "Where does AI fit into that picture today?"

Probes: "What would change their stance?" / "Where do they disagree with you, if anywhere?"

Transition: "Okay. I want to step back to the bigger picture for the last stretch."

Stage 6: Reflection and Projection (10-12 min)

Probes: "Whose judgment of that would matter most to you?" / "What's the failure mode you want to avoid?"

Probes: "What would a coworker notice?" / "What would a board member notice?" / "What would a member notice (if anything)?"

Probes: "What would you watch for as an early signal?" / "Have you seen this break down at Septapod or elsewhere before?"

Stage 7: Soft Close (3-5 min, doorknob aware)

Closing questions:

  • "Is there anything we did not cover that you think is important for me to know before I synthesize this work?"
  • "Anything you want to ask me about how I am approaching this, or where I see the engagement landing?"
  • "When I come back with the diagnosis after Sprint One, is there anything you want me to be sure to listen for in the team survey responses or in the function work?"

Doorknob awareness: Keep notes open and engaged until the conversation has fully ended. The most important data of the interview often surfaces in the last few minutes as the CEO feels the formal structure dissolving. If the CEO starts a new thought as you are closing the laptop, sit back down. Do not rush the departure.

Taxonomy balance 11 substantive questions 0 anti-patterns flagged 7 taxonomy types covered

Coverage: Sequence (Q2, Q7, kick-off probe), Specific Examples (Q3, Q4, Q5), Compare Across Time (Q6), Relationships (Q8), Code Words / Native Language (Q5 folded in), Projection Anchored (Q9, Q10), Exception (Q11), Complete List (Q2 folded with sequence).

Arc structure: All 7 stages of Portigal's interview arc present. Threshold, restating objectives, kick-off, accept-the-awkwardness, tipping point, reflection-and-projection, soft close. Transitions between sections are scripted.

Q2 scaffolding moved to probes: The original draft listed possible AI surfaces in the question stem. Live-interview risk: the interviewer's voice fills the silence the participant needs to think. Resolved by moving those categories from the question stem to the probe list; they get used only if the CEO runs dry.

Governance Readiness Assessment Parallel fast track, ships end of Week 2

The AI Policy (board-approved earlier this year) already defines decision authorities: Board approval triggers, Executive Team implementation authority, VP of Risk and Reporting for risk assessments, Tech Steering Committee for high-risk approvals, AI Taskforce for culture and training, AI Solutions Use Questionnaire as intake. This assessment tests whether those authorities are operational, not creates new governance from scratch.

Why this ships fast: Without confirming that existing governance authorities are operational, Sprint Three pilots stall on "who can sign off on this?" The assessment identifies what works and what needs support before pilots begin.

Vendor AI Audit

Catalog every vendor system that uses AI and assess risk using the FS-ISAC GenAI Vendor Evaluation Framework. Due diligence tier auto-calculates from domain scores. Sovereignty assessment runs alongside the risk tiering.

Module info Weeks 2-3 10h facilitator 30min CEO 30min-3h per exec 0h board
When: Weeks 2-3 of Sprint One. Spans ~2 calendar weeks. Runs in parallel with maturity self-rating.

Time per person

Facilitator (Brent) 10 h ~2h sync with IT leadership + ~8h analysis (includes buffer for first-time delivery)
CEO 30 min Async review of vendor tier findings
SVP IT (primary) 3 h ~1.5h walkthrough + 1.5h async vendor-by-vendor input
Compliance + CFO + COO 30 min each Async input only on sensitive vendor decisions
Exec team cumulative ~4 h SVP IT does the bulk; others minimal
Each board member n/a Not engaged in this module

What actually happens

Brent runs a ~1.5h walkthrough session with Septapod's SVP IT to populate the vendor inventory. Each vendor gets FS-ISAC 5-domain scoring and a four-question sovereignty assessment (data portability, vendor training, contract terms, replaceability). CFO, COO, and Compliance contribute async input on vendors that touch their domains. Brent calculates risk tiers and writes a vendor audit summary. The CEO reviews the tier findings async.

Through-line

Generates
Catalog of vendor AI usage (sanctioned and shadow). FS-ISAC risk tier per vendor (Level 1/2/3). Sovereignty assessment per vendor (data portability, lock-in, contract terms, replaceability).
Value to Septapod
Names "AI is finding its way into vendor relationships" with specifics rather than abstraction. Provides defensible documentation aligned to NCUA third-party risk expectations. Surfaces the highest-leverage vendor conversations to have first.
How Septapod uses it
Contract review cycle integrates the sovereignty questions at renewal. Highest-tier vendors get focused attention in Sprint Three. The audit becomes a recurring annual exercise the AI Taskforce owns at Septapod.
Feeds into
Sprint Two's task mapping uses vendor audit findings as task selection criteria. Sprint Two's workshop discusses how to operationalize audit findings. Sprint Three (vendor rubric applied to active vendor decisions). The AI Solutions Use Questionnaire (Policy v1.5) inherits the sovereignty dimensions.

Research & methods anchors

IBM CEO Study (2026) finds 83% of all CEOs and 97% of AI-first CEOs say AI sovereignty is essential to business strategy. By 2030, only 13% of orgs expect to primarily use foundation models. Half expect a hybrid mix. For credit unions on a core processor, single-vendor lock-in is the highest-cost mistake to make now.

  • FS-ISAC GenAI Vendor Evaluation Framework: 5-domain risk assessment producing Level 1/2/3 tier
  • Data & Trusted AI Alliance, AI Vendor Assessment Framework: explicitly maps to NCUA third-party risk expectations; sovereignty questions can layer in here
  • IBM CEO Study Play #3 (Customize your AI mix): source for the four sovereignty questions per vendor
  • NCUA Credit Union AI Resources: supervisory framing for vendor documentation

Add / Edit Vendor

Source: FS-ISAC GenAI Vendor Evaluation Framework, 5 Assessment Domains

FS-ISAC Assessment Domains

Tier: n/a

Vendor Inventory

Add vendors discovered during the audit walkthrough session

AI Maturity Assessment

Async self-rating across the executive team on the McKenna AI Maturity Pyramid plus the foundation pillar dimensions. Discrepancies between exec views become a discussion topic inside the Sprint Two strategy workshop, not a separate session.

Module info Week 3 (async) 6h facilitator 30min CEO 30min per exec 0h board
When: Week 3 of Sprint One. Async self-rating, no live session. Spans ~1 calendar week.

Time per person

Facilitator (Brent) 6 h Analysis, gap mapping, prep for the Sprint Two workshop (includes first-time buffer)
CEO 30 min Same self-rating as the team, async
Each senior exec 30 min Async self-rating · cumulative depends on team size
Each board member n/a Not engaged in this module

What actually happens

The CEO and the executive team each complete a short async self-rating (~30 min): place Septapod on the McKenna L0-L4 pyramid for each capability area, then re-score the four foundation pillars from Step 1 with the maturity lens. Brent analyzes where the team agrees vs. diverges, maps the gaps against the foundation baseline, and prepares the discrepancy view as an opening activity for the Sprint Two workshop. No live session in Step 3 itself.

Through-line

Generates
Current maturity level (McKenna L0-L4). Target maturity level (where the exec team wants to be in 18 months). Named gaps between current and target tied to foundation pillars from Step 1. Incorporates the the readiness assessment readiness assessment results as baseline input where available.
Value to Septapod
Anchors strategic conversation in shared current-state language. Forces a specific ambition commitment rather than "improve AI capability" generically. Surfaces capability dependencies (you can't get to L3 without L2 foundations). Builds on work already underway rather than starting from zero.
How Septapod uses it
Annual reassessment tracks movement. Maturity targets inform pilot prioritization. The gap analysis becomes input to the Annual AI Plan refresh that's already in the strategic plan.
Feeds into
Sprint Two's task mapping selects functions whose maturity gaps signal high-leverage candidate areas. Sprint Two's workshop selects activities that close the specific gaps. Sprint Two pilot selection. Sprint Four roadmap structure.

Research & methods anchors

Maturity assessment serves a different question than the IBM mindset diagnostic in Step 1. Foundation pillars measure readiness (capability, governance, culture, data). Mindset measures strategic posture (where the CEO's head is). Both matter and they ask different questions.

  • McKenna AI Maturity Pyramid & Canvas: five-level framework (L0 Ad-hoc through L4 Autonomous)
  • McKenna Foundation Assessment: 4-pillar scores carried forward from Step 1
  • MIT CISR Four-Stage Enterprise AI Maturity Framework: secondary benchmark; stages 3-4 show above-average financial performance vs. stages 1-2

Current AI Maturity Level

Source: McKenna AI Strategy Canvas, AI Maturity Pyramid

L0 No AI
No AI systems in use. No awareness or strategy.
L1 Exploring
Awareness of AI potential. Some vendor AI in use (often unintentionally). Basic governance started. Individual experimentation.
L2 Experimenting
Defined AI strategy. Deliberate pilot projects. Cross-functional team engagement. Formal governance in place. Staff training underway.
L3 Scaling
Multiple AI systems in operational use. Dedicated AI leadership. Organization-wide literacy. Mature governance with monitoring. ROI measurement.
L4 Transforming
AI embedded in core operations. Continuous innovation culture. Advanced data infrastructure. Industry leadership in AI adoption.

18-Month Maturity Target

Where does Septapod want to be?

L1 Exploring
L2 Experimenting
L3 Scaling
L4 Transforming

Foundation Pillar Scores

From Step 1: McKenna Foundation Assessment

Complete Step 1 to see foundation scores.

Diagnosis Summary

Aggregated view of all data collected across Steps 1-3, plus the artifacts produced for Septapod's hands. Print or copy as markdown for use in the proposal or deliverable.

Module info Weeks 3-4 11h facilitator 1h CEO 1h per exec
When: Weeks 3-4 of Sprint One. Synthesis and exec review.

Time per person

Facilitator (Brent) 11 h 1h exec review + 10h writing and prep (includes first-time buffer)
CEO 1 h Sync exec review
Each senior exec 1 h Sync review meeting · cumulative depends on team size

What actually happens

Brent writes the Sprint One strategic diagnosis. It pulls the data and signals from Steps 1-3 into one readable document the CEO can hand to anyone: AI posture, strategic identity, foundation readiness, vendor landscape, a governance readiness draft, and identified gaps. Brent runs a 1-hour sync exec review with the CEO and the executive team to capture edits, then refines. The diagnosis is Sprint One's deliverable and the basis for committing to Sprint Two.

Through-line

Generates
The Written Strategic Diagnosis. One document the CEO can hand to anyone, pulling together AI posture, strategic identity, foundation readiness, vendor landscape, a governance readiness draft, and identified gaps. The governance readiness draft (Decision Rights v0.5) is what Sprint Two builds the full governance readiness assessment from.
Value to Septapod
Gives the CEO one document she can hold in her head and hand to the board with confidence. Names the strategic posture in plain language. Documents where the executive team agrees and where it does not. Sets the baseline against which the engagement's progress gets measured.
How Septapod uses it
Sprint Two starts from this diagnosis with no rework. The diagnosis becomes the reference point for measuring progress at each Strategic Plan refresh. The governance readiness draft tells Sprint Two where the AI Policy's authorities need operational support before pilots begin.
Feeds into
Sprint Two (the diagnosis is the foundation for the task mapping and the workshop). Sprint Four (the diagnosis is the "before" state against which the Annual AI Plan is the "after").

Research & methods anchors

The diagnosis is the artifact that makes Sprint One's value visible to people who weren't in the workshops. It is also what makes the choice to commit to Sprint Two an easy yes. The work continues from a concrete starting point, not from a blank page.

  • WEF Empowering AI Leadership Toolkit: board-meeting module structure for the briefing
  • NCUA Credit Union AI Resources: supervisory expectations that the documentation must satisfy
  • NIST AI RMF Playbook: governance gap items that become the AI Policy v1.5 additions
  • Septapod Strategic Plan (the strategic plan): Annual AI Plan refresh language and four-pillar structure

What Sprint One Delivers

The Sprint One deliverable · the summary sections below are its working components

  1. Written Strategic Diagnosis. One document the CEO can hand to the board, a regulator, or any new vendor conversation. Pulls AI posture, strategic identity, foundation readiness, vendor landscape, the governance readiness draft, and identified gaps into a single readable artifact.
  2. Governance Readiness draft (Decision Rights v0.5). Shows where the AI Policy's existing authorities are working and where they need operational support. Sprint Two builds the full Governance Readiness Assessment from it.

AI Strategy Canvas

Complete Steps 1-4 to populate the strategy canvas.

Vendor AI Landscape

No vendors cataloged. Complete Step 2 to populate.

Executive Team Alignment

No survey data entered. Complete Step 1 to populate.

CEO Discovery (Interview Notes)

Complete Step 1's CEO Interview Guide to populate.

Governance Readiness Assessment

Complete Step 1's Governance Readiness Assessment card to populate.

Identified Gaps

Complete Steps 1-3 to generate gap analysis.