Overview Team & Role Impact Users & Goals Constraints & Design Tradeoffs Design Approach Outcomes
Built the content creation tool that cut lesson production from 104 hours to 4

Enabling non-technical educators to build structured AI Tutor experiences at scale.

Lead Product Designer Lead Curriculum Designer 2025 – Mid 2026
Team

Team & Role

Led the design and development of Studio as a 0→1 system in a lean team, taking ownership across product, pedagogy, and execution to make AI-powered lesson creation work end-to-end.

Lead Product & Curriculum Designer (Me) Bhanu

Defined the core system architecture and end-to-end product experience, and validated it by creating real lessons used in production. Designed the full V0 system solo, overnight, in ~6 hours, then spent the rest of the runway to developer handoff incorporating feedback and documenting flows.

Engineers (2–3): Built the Studio platform and AI Tutor system enabling real-time lesson delivery

Product Manager / Founder: Drove product direction and pilot rollout with schools

Next The impact we delivered at scale

Impact

IMPACT

Reduced lesson creation from 104 hours to 4, enabling rapid content production and giving educators direct control over how the AI Tutor teaches.

Old workflow: 3 disconnected tools

Slides.com + Mermaid + Canva

0 hrs

per lesson: switching tools, rebuilding by hand, no shared source of truth

New workflow: one unified tool

Studio

0 hrs

create, structure & publish a lesson in one place

01

96% faster lesson creation

Reduced creation time from 104 hours to 4 hours by replacing fragmented tools with a single, structured system.

02

<2 hours to onboard

Content designers ramped in under 2 hours vs. 40–50 hours, enabled by familiar, low-friction interactions.

Calculated first creation to publish time

03

Designed to scale from day 1

Enabled new features and lesson types without redesigning core workflows, reducing long-term product complexity.

04

Gave control back to educators

Teachers could define how the AI Tutor teaches, controlling pacing, explanations, and scaffolding.

05

Helped secure early school pilots

Improved ease of lesson creation helped secure ~10 school pilots, driven by strong teacher adoption and control over instruction.

06

Established a defensible moat

Enabled granular control over AI Tutor behavior, moving beyond static EdTech experiences.

Next These outcomes came from understanding what educators are trying to achieve. Here's how we defined those goals.

Users & Goals

USERS & GOALS

To achieve this impact, we focused on what educators and content designers are actually trying to accomplish, not just the tools they use. These goals shaped how the system needed to behave.

Two user roles, one system

EDUCATORS

Personalize instruction for every student

CONTENT DESIGNERS

Design and teach content in one place

Rigid, predefined content

Teachers are limited to fixed lesson structures that don't adapt to individual student needs, restricting control over pacing, explanation, and scaffolding.

Fragmented tooling & costly iteration

Creating and updating lessons required switching across tools, where even small changes meant reworking multiple touch points, with limited support for math-specific content.

Granular control over teaching

Educators can define how the AI Tutor teaches, personalizing instruction, pacing, and support to meet each student where they are.

Unified creation system

A single place to design and teach lessons, where changes are made once and reflected everywhere, with built-in math support and simple, curriculum-specific tools.

Next These goals came with real constraints. Here's how they shaped the system.

Constraints

Constraints & Design Tradeoffs

When we started designing Studio, we initially aimed to support even the most complex lessons, but real constraints forced us to make deliberate tradeoffs.

"My first instinct was to design for full lesson complexity: every branching path, every edge case a teacher might want. With a 12-hour runway to developer handoff and 104 hours per lesson to fix, that scope was unbuildable. I cut it back to a structured, step-by-step flow system instead: less flexible on paper, but the only version that could actually ship and scale."

Extreme production time vs need for scale

Creating a single lesson took 104 hours end-to-end, making it impossible to scale. To support real classrooms, this needed to be reduced to <5 hours per lesson without compromising pedagogy.

Design for speed without breaking instructional quality

Aggressive timeline driven by real demand

Early prototypes generated strong interest from schools, creating immediate demand to support real curriculum. For V0, we had ~12 hours from my initial sketching to developer handoff.

Focus on what must work, not everything that could

Need for deep control without increasing complexity

We wanted to give educators and content designers full control over lessons, but increasing flexibility risked making the system harder to use.

Balance flexibility with structured simplicity

Gap between lesson creation and how it is taught

Designing lessons wasn't enough: the system also needed to ensure the AI Tutor delivers instruction as intended.

Align how lessons are created with how they are taught

Lack of support for math-specific content creation

Supporting fractions, algebra, geometry, and more introduced challenges that typical content tools like PowerPoint, Google Slides, Canva and more don't handle effectively.

Build native support for math content

Next How I approached the design to turn these constraints into a working system.

Design Approach

Design Approach

Given these constraints, the goal was to design a system that could scale lesson creation from 104 hrs → <5 hrs, without compromising pedagogy or increasing complexity.

Learn from real teaching, not assumptions

Worked directly with tutors, took live lessons, and learned how effective lessons are structured and delivered.

Mapped real teaching behavior into the system

Borrow familiar interaction patterns

Took inspiration from tools like Canva to reduce cognitive load and make the system intuitive.

Enabled fast onboarding with minimal training

Design a flow-based lesson system

Designed a structured flow system where each step controls how the AI Tutor behaves and progresses.

"Instead of static slides, lessons were structured using an 'appearance order' system, allowing educators to control what the AI Tutor says, how it behaves, and how content unfolds step-by-step during instruction."

Turned lessons into structured, controllable systems

Validate with real users early

Tested with tutors and content designers by creating real lessons and identifying friction points.

Refined usability and pedagogy early

Dogfood to uncover real bottlenecks

Created 15+ lessons end-to-end to stress-test the system and identify bottlenecks in reducing creation time.

Removed friction and simplified the creation workflow

Next The measurable impact on lesson creation speed and scalability

Outcomes

Outcomes

Studio didn't just reduce lesson creation time, it changed how lessons are designed, taught, and scaled across classrooms.

Lesson creation time

104 hrs → 4 hrs

Most of the time previously spent building lessons was eliminated, shifting effort from manual creation to refining instruction.

Content production at scale

~700 lessons, ~4.5 hrs avg

~3,128 hours across ~700 lessons: what was previously infeasible became repeatable, validating the system's ability to scale content creation in real conditions.

Control over pedagogy

Restored control to educators

Teachers can now define how the AI Tutor teaches, controlling explanation, pacing, and scaffolding in real time.

System flexibility

Subject-agnostic by design

Validated across pilots in English and Physics, proving the system can scale beyond math without redesigning workflows.

Time to onboard

<2 hours

New content designers went from first login to publishing a lesson in under 2 hours, vs. 40–50 hours on the old fragmented tools.

What educators & designers say

✦ THANK_YOU