Capacity Building Model: Flash Lab + Build-a-Bot
For: Josh Weiss (and Accelerator Studio team) Purpose: First pass at answering “What’s your model?” Prepared: February 24, 2026 For discussion: Josh 1:1 — Thursday, February 26
The Question
“What’s your model?”
Josh has been asking this since the Feb 12 quarterly review. The goal: be ready for any conversation — with Isabelle, with a new dean, with a prospective partner — and have a clear answer.
This document is that first pass. It’s organized around three pillars Josh named on Feb 19:
- Playbook — the abstract version of what we do, how it works
- Reach — targeted, intentional reach (not scale for scale’s sake)
- Revenue — is there a revenue stream here? Test it.
The Two Programs
Build-a-Bot and Flash Lab are two halves of one capacity building system. Build-a-Bot is the on-ramp; Flash Lab is the deep dive. Together, they cover the full arc from “I built a thing and I get how this works” to “I’ve explored what AI can and can’t do in my context and I’m ready to act.”
| Build-a-Bot | AI Flash Lab | |
|---|---|---|
| Format | Self-paced + facilitated workshop | 3-hour hands-on deep exploration |
| What happens | Participants build a working chatbot, learn prompt engineering, “look under the hood” | Participants explore AI tools in depth, prototype ideas, stress-test assumptions |
| Audience | Educators, researchers, anyone AI-curious — the on-ramp | Educators ready to go deeper, faculty, researchers with specific use cases |
| Outcome | A working chatbot + foundational understanding of how AI works | A clearer sense of what AI can and can’t do in their context + a prototype to take home |
| Scaling path | Trained facilitators + self-service at bot101.app | Trained facilitators run sessions independently |
| Materials | bot101.app | designkit.stanford.edu |
The handoff: Build-a-Bot gives people hands-on confidence — they build something, they see how it works. Flash Lab takes that foundation and goes deeper into exploration and application. A participant who builds a chatbot in Build-a-Bot can then explore harder questions in Flash Lab like “how do I use AI without shortcutting learning?”
Playbook: How It Works
Three Personas
After someone goes through Flash Lab (or Build-a-Bot), they land in one of three personas based on their driving question. This framework emerged from the Feb 24 AS:DE discussion:
| Persona | Driving Question | Pathway |
|---|---|---|
| Instructional Practices | “How do I use AI without shortcutting the learning process?” | CSET, PLEX, ISTE PD |
| Contextual Curiosity | “How could AI specifically help (or hurt) me in my situation?” | Tinkery, custom consultation |
| Identity | “How do I rediscover my value in the age of AI?” | TBD — emerging need |
Design implication: “Today we’re going to explore three essential questions. At the end you’ll have one you want to continue on. If you’d like, we’re happy to connect you to these partners.” Strategic routing, not random.
The Scaling Pipeline
Three tiers, each expanding reach while reducing our direct involvement:
| Tier | What It Looks Like | Examples |
|---|---|---|
| Direct delivery | Reuben (or team) facilitates | Oman Hackathon, UNESCO, AI+Education Summit Flash Labs |
| Train-the-trainer | We train facilitators, they run it independently | ISTE (Winston, Beth, Jeremiah), Anna-Lena (Paris), Courtney (TCEA) |
| Self-serve toolkit | Materials available for anyone to pick up and run | designkit.stanford.edu, bot101.app, Gregory Wilson’s Tinkery toolkit |
The pipeline flows left to right: every direct delivery is a chance to identify someone who could become a trained facilitator. Every trained facilitator validates the self-serve materials. (We picked up a lot of interested folks from ASU+GSV and SXSWedu 2025)
Ecosystem Feeding
Every session — regardless of tier — ends with “here’s where to go deeper”:
| If a participant cares about… | We point them to… |
|---|---|
| AI literacy professional development | CSET / PLEX |
| Assessment in the age of AI | Challenge Success |
| Math education + AI | youcubed |
| Research connections | PACE |
| Sustained peer cohort work | ISTE Community of Practice |
Key framing for internal audiences: Our programs contribute to the ecosystem, they don’t cannibalize. Build-a-Bot and Flash Lab are the appetizer; PLEX is the meal. Every session is inbound marketing for GSE programs.
“Achieve Failure”
In the age of breathless AI headlines, there’s value in giving people permission to find something AI doesn’t work for. Confidently articulating what doesn’t work (so far) is an output, not a failure. This is part of the design philosophy — we’re not selling AI, we’re helping people think clearly about it.
Reach: Current State & Targets
What We Have Now
| Metric | Current State (Feb 2026) |
|---|---|
| Workshops delivered | 15+ total (since joining Stanford) — includes Build-a-Bot, Flash Lab, and custom formats |
| Flash Lab sessions specifically | 3: UNESCO, AI+Education Summit (Nov 2025), Oman |
| Build-a-Bot gallery | 1,000+ bots built on bot101.app |
| Facilitators running independently | 2 confirmed: Courtney Garza (Build-a-Bot at TCEA), Anna-Lena Neurohr (Flash Lab in Paris, 2 sessions) |
| International reach | Oman (Ministry of Ed), Paris (Learning Planet), Australia (Churchill, exploring) |
| Active partnership pipeline | ISTE, Tinkery (Gregory Wilson), NewSchools (Vanessa Monterosa) |
| Self-serve toolkit | designkit.stanford.edu live; bot101.app live |
Projections
| Horizon | Facilitators Trained | Sessions by Others | Reach (educators) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Now | 2 active | ~4 independent sessions to date | ~200 direct participants |
| 6 months (Aug 2026) | 8-10 (add ISTE 3, Tinkery 1, NewSchools 1-2, CRM re-engagements) | 15-20 sessions | 500-800 |
| 12 months (Feb 2027) | 15-20 | 40-60 sessions | 1,500-3,000 |
| 18 months (Aug 2027) | 25+ (if ISTE pipeline delivers at scale) | 80+ sessions | 3,000-5,000+ |
The multiplier math: If ISTE touches 100K+ educators annually and even 1% encounter Flash Lab through trained ISTE facilitators, that’s 1,000 educators/year from one partnership alone.
Targeted Reach, Not Scale for Scale’s Sake
Josh’s framing (Feb 19): “Don’t lose soul and research-backed rigor.” The reach numbers matter, but the quality indicators matter more:
- Participants who take a next step (enroll in PLEX, join a CoP, build something after)
- Facilitators who run repeat sessions (not one-and-done)
- Research outputs enabled (Anna-Lena’s 6 projects)
Revenue: The Pricing Experiment
The Baseline
From the Feb 24 AS:DE discussion:
- 1 hour + materials = $5,000 (baseline for an external partner engagement)
- Ongoing iterative partnership = more (sustained relationship, not one-off)
- Framing: “testing a pricing model to understand the value”
Market Pricing Research (Feb 2026)
We researched pricing across comparable education PD providers. The $5K baseline is solidly in the market range — mid-to-premium for a facilitated session from a university-affiliated program with custom materials.
Per-Session / On-Site Workshop Delivery
The most direct comp for “facilitated session + materials”:
| Provider | Format | Price | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Smekens Education | On-site consulting (full day) | $2,700 - $6,500/day + travel | Published rate sheet |
| Quality Matters | Group workshop (on-site or virtual) | $2,000 - $3,800/session | Member/non-member tiers |
| North Star Facilitators | Experienced facilitator daily rate (industry benchmark) | $3,000 - $5,000/day | Industry survey |
| FIRST Robotics | Per-seat PD workshops | $300 - $2,500/seat | Published pricing |
| PBLWorks | 3-day in-person workshop (PBL World 2026) | $1,400/person | Conference pricing |
Note: For a 3-hour Flash Lab, frame as “engagement fee” (prep + delivery + materials + follow-up referral routing), not “hourly rate.”
Train-the-Trainer Programs
The comp for the ISTE TTT package:
| Provider | Format | Price | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| ATD | Training & Facilitation Certificate (virtual, multi-session) | $1,995 - $2,245/person | Member/non-member |
| Langevin | TTT workshops (various lengths) | ~$1,050 - $1,680/person (promo) | Promotional pricing |
| PBLWorks | PBL Coaching Workshop (3 days) | $1,400/person | Conference pricing |
| HOPE / Tufts | Train the Facilitator Certification | $1,500/person | Published |
| Compassionate Listening | Facilitator Certification | $2,000 - $4,000/person | Sliding scale |
| Quality Matters | Facilitator Certification (member) | $330 - $550/person | Member pricing |
Market range for generic TTT: $1,500 - $2,500/person. Our offering includes bespoke materials, live co-facilitation, observation, debrief, and Stanford-backed methodology — justifies premium.
Certification / Ongoing Programs
If we formalize a Certified Flash Lab Facilitator:
| Provider | Format | Price | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| ISTE | Certified Educator (9-month, ~80 hrs) | Est. $1,500 - $2,500 (not public) | Partner pricing estimates |
| PBLWorks + SNHU | Graduate credit course | $519/person ($399 + $120) | Published |
| Voltage Control | Facilitation Certification (3-month cohort) | ~$2,900 | Published |
| ATD | Master Trainer (advanced cert) | $1,995 - $2,245 | Member/non-member |
School / District Packages
For when we’re ready to scale beyond per-session:
| Provider | Format | Price | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Smekens Education | School-wide PD plan (12 months) | $2,500 - $9,500/school | Tiered plans |
| Quality Matters | Institutional membership + PD access | Tiered by institution size | Published |
| Challenge Success | School partnership (12-18 months) | Sliding scale (not public) | Stanford peer |
| PBLWorks | Multi-year district partnership | Custom (60+ active partnerships) | Via inquiry |
Pricing Recommendations
| Our Offering | Suggested Range | Market Position |
|---|---|---|
| Single Flash Lab session (facilitated) | $3,000 - $5,000 | Mid-to-premium. $5K works with Stanford brand + materials. |
| TTT cohort (6 weeks, 3 facilitators) | $15,000 - $25,000 | Premium — ongoing support, co-facilitation, observation. |
| Per-facilitator TTT (if sold individually) | $3,000 - $8,000 | High end ($1,500-2,500 is generic TTT). Stanford + bespoke = premium. |
| Toolkit license (annual, org-level) | $5,000 - $15,000/year | Comparable to Smekens school plans, QM institutional access. |
| Certified facilitator program (if formalized) | $1,500 - $3,000/person | In line with ATD, HOPE, Voltage Control certs. |
Revenue Is a Signal, Not the Goal
Josh (Feb 19): “If one of the top 5 questions people ask is ‘is this making us money?’ — run an experiment.” Revenue validates that what we’re offering has real value. The ISTE meeting (Feb 25) is the first live test of pricing in a real partnership conversation.
6-Month Roadmap
| Month | Milestone | Feeds |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | ISTE partnership terms finalized; SMART goals locked with Josh | Playbook, Reach |
| Mar 2026 | CRM re-engagement campaign sent (5+ stale facilitators) | Reach |
| Apr 2026 | ISTE TTT Week 1: Reuben runs train-the-trainer session | Playbook, Reach |
| Apr 2026 | Tinkery toolkit v1 (Gregory Wilson collaboration) | Playbook |
| May 2026 | ISTE facilitators co-facilitate first Flash Lab with Reuben observing | Reach |
| May 2026 | NewSchools engagement (if Vanessa timeline holds) | Reach |
| Jun 2026 | ISTE facilitators run first independent session + debrief | Reach, Revenue |
| Jun 2026 | First revenue data point from a partnership engagement | Revenue |
| Jul 2026 | Mid-year review: Playbook/Reach/Revenue scorecard for Josh | All three |
| Aug 2026 | NewSchools Venture Fund engagement (if Vanessa timeline holds) | Reach |
| Aug 2026 | ISTE fall convening prep (90-educator kickoff, 1.5 day in-person) | Reach, Revenue |
Open Questions
The “5 Questions” Exercise
Josh (Feb 19): “What are the 5 most likely questions people would have about our model in 6 months, 12 months, 18 months?”
At 6 months (Aug 2026):
- How many facilitators are actually running sessions independently?
- Is ISTE delivering quality sessions without us in the room?
- Are participants taking next steps (enrolling in PLEX, joining CoPs, building something)?
- What’s our pricing model and has anyone paid?
- Can we articulate what’s different about our approach vs. ISTE’s own AI PD?
At 12 months (Feb 2027):
- Is this making us money — or at least demonstrating revenue potential?
- How do we maintain fidelity as more facilitators run sessions we don’t see?
- What does the research say — is Flash Lab actually changing educator practice?
- Are we feeding real numbers to CSET/PLEX/youcubed/Challenge Success?
- Should we formalize a certification (Certified Flash Lab Facilitator)?
At 18 months (Aug 2027):
- Is this sustainable without Reuben as the bottleneck?
- What’s the right institutional home for this — Accelerator Studio, CSET, standalone?
- Are we ready for a district-level licensing model?
- How does the new dean view this work — asset or distraction?
- What’s the next format after Flash Lab and Build-a-Bot?
What Makes SAL Different?
From the Feb 19 1:1: “Why pick a seed grant at SAL vs. Impact Labs, etc.?”
Our best answer so far: learning science focus + hands-on format design + ecosystem feeding.
- We don’t just teach about AI — participants build with it in the session
- Every session is designed around learning science principles (not just tool demos)
- We route participants into the broader Stanford ecosystem (CSET, PLEX, youcubed, PACE)
- We train facilitators, not just participants — the method scales, not just the content
This needs sharpening. A possible workshop on “what’s our learning science differentiator?” could help (noted in Feb 19 1:1).
Evidence Appendix
Key Quotes
“I flew back home saying ‘I made a thing!’” — Vanessa Monterosa, NewSchools Venture Fund (Jan 29, 2026, after November Flash Lab)
“Here I am, just before stepping on stage at #TCEA2026 to share how educators can build their own AI chatbot!” — Courtney Garza (Feb 10, 2026 — completed training, then registered and delivered Build-a-Bot at TCEA on her own)
“Your presence, professionalism, and thoughtful contributions added great value.” — Dr. Fatma Al-Dohani, Oman Ministry of Education (Feb 9, 2026)
Partner Pipeline
| Partner | Stage | Program | Potential Reach |
|---|---|---|---|
| ISTE | Active — scoping (Feb 25 meeting) | Flash Lab TTT | 100K+ educators in their network |
| Tinkery (Gregory Wilson) | Active — building toolkit | Flash Lab extension | TBD — focus on Contextual Curiosity persona |
| NewSchools (Vanessa Monterosa) | Exploring — reconnect next month | Flash Lab for portfolio orgs | Multiple school networks |
| Anna-Lena / Learning Planet | Active — piloting | Flash Lab for research | International research community |
| Churchill / Australia (Kelly) | Exploring | Flash Lab | Australian education network |
| Courtney Garza | Independent — already scaling | Build-a-Bot | Texas education conference circuit |
Three C’s Alignment
| C | How This Model Delivers |
|---|---|
| Critical Boost | Trained facilitators become force multipliers — they reach educators we never could on our own |
| Capacity Building | We’re scaling the method, not just doing more sessions ourselves. Every TTT graduate is a permanent expansion of capacity. |
| Cross-Pollination | External partnerships (ISTE, Tinkery, NewSchools) generate signal on market fit and feed participants back into Stanford’s ecosystem |
First pass — for Josh review before Feb 26 1:1. All data points sourced from existing project files, meeting notes, and market research.
reference/capacity-building-model.md