Strengthen faculty practice where the evidence shows a need.
The Faculty AI Fluency Studio is an adaptable implementation program for business schools that need stronger course practice, clearer student guidance, or more faculty capacity around AI-enabled teaching. Faculty work on real policies, assignments, assessments, workflows, and leadership tools so the engagement produces changes that can move directly into practice.
Faculty development works best when it is attached to a real implementation problem.
A school may already know that faculty need support. The challenge is defining what kind. Some instructors need a clearer foundation for responsible use. Others are ready to redesign assignments, build verification into student workflows, or lead colleagues through curriculum and governance decisions.
The Studio starts with the work the institution needs faculty to accomplish. It can stand alone when that need is already clear, or it can follow the AI Capability & Evidence Diagnostic, CourseReady AI, or an assessment review that identifies faculty practice as the next constraint on progress.
Use faculty development to solve a defined capability or implementation gap.
The strongest engagements begin with a specific problem the school wants faculty to address. That keeps the program grounded in decisions that affect students, courses, assessment, and institutional evidence.
Student expectations vary
Faculty need a shared language for AI permissions, disclosure, data use, verification, and accountability while retaining appropriate disciplinary flexibility.
Assignments need redesign
Existing tasks make it difficult to see student reasoning or have become easy to bypass with AI. Faculty need human-loop checkpoints and stronger process evidence.
Capability is uneven
Some faculty are ready for advanced workflow design while others need foundations. The institution needs differentiated support rather than one generic session.
Leadership capacity is thin
Peer mentors, fellows, chairs, or teaching leaders need tools to support colleagues and connect course-level practice to program and institutional decisions.
Six dimensions help target support without turning development into personnel evaluation.
The Faculty AI Fluency Index provides a developmental view across four levels: Novice, Exploring, Adapting, and Fluent. It helps faculty and program leaders see the kind of support that will be useful at a given stage and recognize progression in the work faculty can perform.
FAFI is used to shape development, reflection, and support. Institutions that want to use any developmental data for formal evaluation would need a separate governance process, clear consent, and locally approved criteria.
Build the experience around the faculty work that must change.
Navigate AI draws from a complete six-course curriculum library across Foundations and Leadership tracks, then adapts the sequence to the school’s readiness, disciplines, course context, and desired outputs. The library provides depth without requiring every institution to purchase the same fixed program.
Focused Foundations Studio
A bounded experience for faculty who need shared language, responsible-use guidance, and one concrete course change. The emphasis stays on a decision they can apply immediately.
Course Redesign Cohort
A multi-session program centered on human-loop assignment design, verification routines, student guidance, and a pilot-ready implementation portfolio.
Faculty AI Leadership Studio
For peer mentors, teaching leaders, fellows, and administrators who need to support colleagues, facilitate difficult decisions, and connect course-level practice to broader strategy.
Custom Institutional Pathway
A tailored sequence assembled from Ignite, Build, Elevate, Support, Strategy, and Fellowship materials. Sessions can be selected and adapted around the evidence gap the school is trying to close.
Every participant develops something the school can use after the session ends.
The Studio treats faculty development as implementation work. Participants receive guidance, examples, and peer feedback while creating materials for their own courses, disciplines, or leadership responsibilities.
That artifact-centered design also gives leadership a more useful form of evidence. Instead of counting attendance alone, the school can see what faculty changed, what is ready to pilot, and where additional support remains necessary.
See the capability developed, the artifacts produced, and the support needed next.
The institutional output depends on the format, but the goal is always to create a usable record of development and implementation. Leadership receives enough information to decide whether the work should continue, expand, or become more targeted.
A FAFI-informed picture that helps differentiate support while keeping the process developmental and non-evaluative.
Revised policies, assignments, assessment elements, workflows, or leadership tools created during the engagement.
Common terms and decision principles faculty can use with students and colleagues across programs.
Session plans, examples, templates, and options for internal follow-up after the external engagement ends.
Participation, capability patterns, produced artifacts, unresolved barriers, and recommended next support moves.
Certificates can recognize completion where useful. The substantive evidence remains the capability and work faculty develop.
Faculty development should help close a visible institutional gap.
The Studio becomes especially useful when another Navigate AI engagement has already identified where faculty practice is limiting student capability or evidence quality.
After the Diagnostic
Use the Studio when the institutional review shows uneven faculty support, inconsistent course implementation, or limited evidence that professional development is changing practice.
After CourseReady
Use a targeted cohort when several course reviews reveal recurring problems with AI guidance, assignment design, verification, or assessment evidence.
After an Assessment Sprint
Prepare faculty to implement a revised direct measure consistently, collect the intended process evidence, and interpret student work using the new rubric.
A school can also begin directly with the Studio when the need is already clear. The key is to define the implementation problem first so the program is shaped around the work faculty actually need to perform.
Match the faculty-development scope to the change the school needs.
The Studio is priced as a targeted institutional engagement rather than as individual certificate enrollment. Scope varies with cohort size, number of sessions, customization, modality, and the amount of artifact review or follow-up support required.
$5,000–$7,500
For a bounded faculty group working toward one shared outcome or course change.
- Tailored live sessions
- Practical templates and examples
- Faculty artifact development
$7,500–$12,500
For a multi-session redesign or fluency experience with stronger peer learning and implementation support.
- Readiness-informed sequence
- Artifact review and feedback
- Leadership summary and next steps
Scoped separately
For leadership development, larger cohorts, multi-track programming, on-site delivery, or substantial customization.
- Selected Foundations and Leadership modules
- Custom institutional cases and materials
- Optional recognition and continuation plan
Ranges are indicative and finalized after scope. Travel, if required, is scoped separately. Certificates remain optional and do not define the value of the engagement.
What faculty and academic leaders usually want to know.
Do all faculty need to begin at the same level?
No. FAFI exists partly because faculty readiness differs. A well-designed cohort can establish shared expectations while giving more experienced participants room to work on advanced workflow, assessment, leadership, or governance problems.
Is this primarily a certificate program?
No. Navigate AI has a complete curriculum and can offer recognition where useful, but the institutional engagement is organized around capability and implementation. The strongest evidence is the course or leadership work faculty produce and later use.
Is FAFI a faculty evaluation instrument?
FAFI is designed as a developmental framework for reflection, support, and program design. Any formal personnel use would require separate institutional governance, locally approved criteria, clear consent, and a purpose beyond the Navigate AI Studio model.
Can the Studio be purchased without the full Diagnostic?
Yes. A school can begin directly with faculty development when the need is already well defined. The Diagnostic, CourseReady, or Assessment Sprint can make the targeting more precise when leadership is still trying to determine where the capability gap resides.
Build the faculty practice required for the next institutional step.
Start with the implementation problem, then design a faculty experience around the artifacts and decisions that will move the work forward.