Goals
Role Evolution — Working Notes
Personal thinking space. NOT for sharing with Josh. The version of this conversation that goes to Josh lives in the May 14 email draft (Apple Mail Drafts) and prep/2026-05-07-josh-1on1-reach-robust.md. This file is where I scaffold the JD draft, map what each quarter looks like over the next year, and pressure-test my own thinking.
Last updated: 2026-05-14
Purpose of this file
- Draft the job description the role would have if the three vectors are real.
- Map quarterly milestones for the next 12 months (Q1 → Q4 of the Aug 2026 – Aug 2027 GPS cycle), so each conversation with Josh, Isabelle, or HR can point to specific deliverables, not vibes.
- Track what I still need to learn or decide before the JD is real.
- A place for pre-decisional thinking I’m not yet ready to show.
The frame
R/R/R is the conversation. Studio version is the scaffolding; the personal version is the actual subject.
- Reach (personal): I’m the named call — the credible Stanford voice in 3–4 specific AI+ed conversations — not just an internal contributor.
- Robust (personal): I move from Format Designer to System Designer. Less “I build for you,” more “here’s how we build for ourselves.”
- Resonance (personal): “The role evolved past ‘Emerging Technology Lead’ and we have words for what came next.”
Each R has a vector. Each vector has quarterly milestones. The JD is the result.
Where the title sits vs. where the work sits (evidence base for the JD)
| Dimension | What “Emerging Tech Lead” implies | What I’m actually doing |
|---|---|---|
| Seed-grant portfolio | Maybe advise a few projects | 6+ active high-touch threads across 3 cohorts (Learning Through Creation, Joyful Learning, tEquity), plus wider sounding-board layer. Substrate of the role. |
| Programs owned | 0 — advise on others’ work | 2 named offerings (Flash Lab, Build-a-Bot) with toolkits, IP, and cost sheet. Both grew out of seed-grant work. |
| Train-the-trainer | Out of scope | 4+ facilitators running my formats independently (Courtney TCEA, Andy Eugene, Anna-Lena Paris, Gregory Tinkery) |
| External partnerships | Help land them | Lead the ISTE licensing conversation (now locked); named in OTL/IP work; primary on Oman Ministry delivery |
| Cross-cohort programming | Not the role | Designed and delivered Legal 101; SPARK → BUILD → SHARPEN → SCALE framework with Three C’s |
| Strategic framing | Tactical advice | “Effort is a tax on change,” Broken Proxy, R/R/R itself — frames that propagate beyond me |
| Operational scaffolding | Not expected | Tag system, EOM cadence, lifecycle framework, Strategic Huddle agenda items — built to manage the portfolio |
| Studio voice on AI+ed | Internal | Named role at ISTE Live AI Pavilion; designkit.stanford.edu + bot101.app indexed externally |
Three vectors of growth — with quarterly cadence
For each vector: where I am today, what each quarter of the next cycle delivers, and what proof points I want by Aug 2027.
The Reach vector — Format Designer → Format Steward
Today (May 2026):
- 2 named programs live (Flash Lab, Build-a-Bot)
- 4 independent facilitators
- Multilingual BaB shipped (DE/ES/FR/EN)
- Cost sheet drafted, sent to Josh
- ISTE Live 2026 locked in — the live test case for the licensing model
Q1 next cycle (Aug–Oct 2026) — Robust quarter focus:
- ISTE Live delivered (late June, then debriefed)
- Cost sheet finalized + circulated to OTL
- Facilitator quality bar formalized (rubric, materials version control)
- IP integrity playbook drafted
Q2 next cycle (Nov 2026 – Jan 2027) — Reach quarter focus:
- Second authorized provider conversation initiated (NewSchools-adjacent, or other)
- Revenue model piloted with at least one partner
- Train-the-trainer cohort #2 designed (post-ISTE, scaled version)
Q3 next cycle (Feb–Apr 2027) — Resonance quarter focus:
- 2+ external case studies published (Flash Lab in non-tech domains, BaB at scale)
- Format-Steward role described publicly (blog, talk, or paper)
Q4 next cycle (May–Jul 2027):
- Synthesis. Year-end story: “Flash Lab + BaB are running in places we’ve never been, run by people we’ve never met.”
Aug 2027 proof points:
- Revenue line on the Studio P&L (or whatever Stanford’s equivalent is)
- 6+ authorized facilitators or licensees
- One published case study attributed to the format
The Robust vector — portfolio lead + System Designer
This vector holds both the seed-grant portfolio work AND the operational scaffolding I built to manage it. They’re the same vector, not two. The seed-grant work is the substrate; the scaffolding exists to make the substrate sustainable.
Today (May 2026):
The portfolio I’m leading:
- Learning Through Creation: Fan/Chu Math Games (cooling), Forssell-Ramirez Makery (steady, Jacob)
- Joyful Learning: DeVeaux Dancing through Time (high-touch then stalled — naming it), King Our Voice (cooling, Ankita catch-up planned)
- tEquity: CRISPRkit (transitioning to Belinda handoff), SofIA (medium-high, the canonical vibe-coded-MVP case)
- Adjacent advisory threads: Health Coach Bot (Marily Oppezzo), MyBook (Wen Ma), AI Comic Studio (Dan Schwartz / Cathy Chase), HarmonAI (Elizabeth Schumann), VFT moderation (Rachel Wolf), Oman special-ed (Dr. Shariffa)
The scaffolding I built to manage it:
- Capacity discipline (18 → 14 active threads in Q1; tag system informs investment)
- Lifecycle framework (SPARK → BUILD → SHARPEN → SCALE) + Three C’s calibrate per project
- High/medium/low-touch language (Joe’s “support-o-meter,” Apr 27 EOM) — not yet portfolio-wide
- Strategic Huddle agenda items I pre-commit and surface
- The Claude executive-assistant system is itself an artifact of the same mode
Q1 next cycle — Robust quarter focus:
- Apply high/medium/low-touch calibration to every active thread
- Tag analysis plan completed (July target was already on the books)
- Codebook v2 (Joe’s “support-o-meter” formalized)
- CRISPRkit handoff completed cleanly
- Cyan-type stalls surfaced through the cooling-connection tracker, not by my oversight
- Vibe-coded-MVP-support-as-a-service named + tagged (assuming green light from huddle)
Q2 next cycle — Reach quarter:
- SofIA continuity plan operating through any Joe OOO
- Possible: working-partner relationship with Joe formalized in a shared scope doc
- Possible: a junior contributor brought in to scaffold the lower-touch threads (intern, fellow, or 0.25 FTE)
Q3 next cycle — Resonance quarter:
- Portfolio publications start landing (Health Coach Bot study? ABCs bots? AI Comic Studio?)
- The operating system the Studio runs on is legibly mine to operate — Josh can point to it without needing to caveat
- Cross-cohort programming becomes a Q3 deliverable, not an exception
Q4 next cycle:
- Documentation of the Studio operating system at a level another institution could borrow it
Aug 2027 proof points:
- At least 3 seed-grant prototypes I led moved to published research, scaled deployment, or a meaningful next-stage milestone
- Portfolio calibrated with documented high/medium/low-touch criteria — no Cyan-shaped stalls by neglect
- The Studio’s operational scaffolding is named, documented, and credibly mine
- I’m operating as a multiplier (1.5–2x the work through structures and people), not just an IC
Honest caveat: The System Designer extension (multiplier mode, junior contributor scaffolding, peer-borrowable operating system) is the part I have the least visible scaffolding for today. The portfolio-lead piece I’m already doing. The System Designer extension is the bet. Worth pressure-testing against capacity reality.
The Resonance vector — the named Studio Voice on AI+Education
Today (May 2026):
- Stanford-credentialed at the AI+ed table but not yet the named call
- ISTE Live 2026 locked
- designkit.stanford.edu + bot101.app indexed externally
Q1 next cycle — Robust quarter:
- ISTE Live debrief published (blog or post-mortem)
- Identify the 3–4 named-call conversations I want to be in by Aug 2027
Q2 next cycle — Reach quarter:
- First inbound ask that attributes to me by name (not just SAL)
- NewSchools-adjacent or foundation conversation initiated
Q3 next cycle — Resonance quarter:
- 2 case studies published
- “Studio Voice” framing exists publicly somewhere (talk, paper, op-ed)
Q4 next cycle:
- Stage selection deliberate: ISTE 2027, SXSWedu or ASU+GSV, one foundation event
Aug 2027 proof points:
- 3+ inbound asks naming me specifically in the past 12 months
- A peer institution or external party describes my role accurately when introducing me
Draft Job Description (working — keep editing)
Working title: [pick one — see options below] Reports to: Director, Accelerator Studio FTE: 1.0
Position summary
[Things still to add/edit: scope of authority on IP decisions, faculty-facing scope, relationship to Joe’s role.]
Key responsibilities
- Seed-grant portfolio leadership. Lead the technical-advisory portfolio across SAL seed grantees in Learning Through Creation, Joyful Learning, and tEquity, plus adjacent advisory threads outside the formal cohorts (Health Coach Bot, MyBook, AI Comic Studio, HarmonAI, etc.). Build prototypes, advise on tech and pedagogy, decide where to invest capacity. Calibrate high/medium/low-touch per project. Hold 3–6 high-touch threads at any given time without losing the wider sounding-board layer.
- Program stewardship. Own the curriculum, standards, and quality bar for the Studio’s named offerings. Maintain IP integrity, materials version control, and the facilitator certification pipeline. Most formats originate in seed-grant work; the stewardship role keeps them coherent as they scale.
- Partnership leadership. Lead authorized-provider conversations, scope licensing deals (in collaboration with OTL), serve as primary point of contact for external partners running Studio formats.
- External representation. Be the named Stanford voice for the Studio in 3–4 specific AI+education conversations. Publish case studies, deliver talks, sit on panels selectively.
- Internal capacity architecture. Own and evolve the Studio’s operating system — tagging, lifecycle framework, EOM cadence, cross-cohort programming. The whole system exists to make the seed-grant portfolio manageable.
- Strategic framing. Produce frames and language that propagate inside and outside the Studio (R/R/R, Three C’s, Broken Proxy, etc.).
Outcomes / success criteria (year 1)
- At least 1 seed-grant prototype I led moves to published research, scaled deployment, or a meaningful next-stage milestone
- Portfolio calibrated to high/medium/low-touch with documented criteria; cooling-connection tracker catches stalls before they get to Cyan-shaped problems
- Revenue model piloted with at least 1 external partner running a Studio format
- 6+ certified facilitators in the authorized-provider network
- 2 case studies published attributing to the Studio’s format work or seed-grant outcomes
- Codebook v2 + tag analysis published; 75%+ tag coverage sustained
- 3+ inbound external asks naming the role by name
- Studio operating system documented at a level a peer institution could borrow
Required scope/authority (asks)
- IP/licensing decision authority within scope (in collaboration with OTL)
- Budget authority for facilitator stipends + program materials
- Hiring scope: at minimum, ability to scope a 0.25 FTE / intern / fellow contributor
- Air cover from Director to say no to mismatched asks
Skills & experience (descriptive, what the role needs)
- Technical fluency across AI/chatbots/web — to build things, not just spec them
- Instructional design + facilitation under time pressure
- Partnership / IP literacy at the Stanford-meets-external interface
- Format / curriculum design end-to-end
- Operational system design (lifecycle frameworks, taxonomies)
Title options (working list)
- Director of Emerging Technology Programs — most accurate to the program-portfolio reality. “Director” reads at Stanford grade structure.
- Director of Learning Innovation Programs — broader. Gets out of “tech” as the headline.
- Lead, Format Design & Partnerships — descriptive. Less hierarchical. Keeps “Lead.”
- Program Architect, AI + Education — leans into System Designer + framing work.
Need to find out: what’s plausible at Stanford’s HR grade structure for this kind of move? Possibly SU-19, possibly a manager-track classification. Homework I haven’t done yet.
Questions for me (not for Josh)
- Which vector am I least equipped for? Honest read: Robust/System Designer. I have the doing; I don’t yet have the multiplier infrastructure.
- What’s the smallest version of the JD I could pilot before formalizing? Maybe a Q1 working scope doc that Josh and I align on internally, before any HR conversation.
- What proof points are missing today? No revenue yet on the format side. No formal multiplier relationship. No published case study.
- What does the JD need to NOT include? What am I doing today that the next version of the role shouldn’t keep? Candidate: hands-on technical prototyping for individual seed grants where I’m operating as a free consultant, not as a Studio offering. Tighten this in the JD.
- What’s the comp anchor? Need actual peer-institution data, not vibes. Lastinger, PBLWorks, Digital Promise role-level data. (I have some of this in
reference/market-research-comparable-orgs.md— need to extract role-level.) - What’s the relationship to Joe’s role? Joe is “Digital Media Lead.” Are we both becoming Directors? Is there a Studio-level org chart implied? Worth being explicit before either of us makes a move.
- What changes if I get a no? A no on the role evolution doesn’t change what I want to do. But it changes whether I do it at SAL or elsewhere. Worth being honest with myself about the timeline I’m willing to wait.
Open questions to actually bring to Josh (these go in the live conversation, not this doc)
These should be in the email + R/R/R prep doc, not duplicated here:
- Title timing path (now vs. earn-first)
- What scope expansion makes re-leveling defensible upstream
- Who else loops in (Isabelle, HR, dean’s office)
- What evidence package Josh would need
What’s already been shared with Josh
- Email (Apple Mail Drafts, May 13 → re-drafted May 14): “For our 1:1: the Reach/Robust/Resonance conversation, brought to its actual subject.” Frames R/R/R as a personal/role question. Asks 1–5. Will be sent before the 1:1.
- R/R/R prep doc:
prep/2026-05-07-josh-1on1-reach-robust.md— Studio-level themes with personal-control lists, refreshed May 13 with Strategic Huddle outcomes.
Anything in this file that isn’t in those two is not yet shared with Josh. Default: keep it that way until I’ve thought it through.
What to do next (next steps for ME)
- Finish a real draft of the position summary (one paragraph, my words)
- Extract role-level comp data from
reference/market-research-comparable-orgs.md - Pressure-test the Robust quarterly mapping against actual capacity (don’t over-promise)
- Have one conversation with someone outside SAL who’s done a Stanford re-leveling — what was the path?
- After Thu 1:1, fold Josh’s input into this doc (vector validation, title preference, timing path he advocates for)
- Decide whether the working JD goes to Josh first, or to Isabelle directly, or to HR (probably Josh, with Josh deciding when Isabelle joins)
Source:
goals/role-evolution-working-notes.md