It’s my project and I do believe this can change the way we teach and present information in a intuitive and meaningful way.
You're pledging to donate if the project hits its minimum goal and gets approved. If not, your funds will be returned.
$14,000 left to reach the funding goal.
I'm Ben White. I'm a Certified Recovery Specialist and a self-taught builder from Kittanning, Pennsylvania. I work in peer recovery support and facilitate groups. SmartGroup is where that work meets the part of me that keeps building until the pieces fit.
The person leading a group needs room to listen, explain and respond. Technology should carry the toolbox, not demand the spotlight. SmartGroup combines AI and video technology with PowerPoint, original worksheets, TV-compatible presentation, a phone app that works as a remote and its own whiteboard.
SmartGroup is built and tested and ready for its first live pilot; funding will recruit a pilot site and independent reviewers, with rural western Pennsylvania as the starting point.
I'm seeking $12,000 to run a four-month supervised pilot and publish what we learn. An $8,000 minimum supports a focused version at one site. The public benefit is practical: a reusable evaluation package and findings that help facilitators make informed decisions about tools like this. I want the work to speak for itself.
My goal is to find out how SmartGroup works in the hands of real recovery or behavioral-health group facilitators, then use that evidence to improve it. A feature list is a starting point. The next step is seeing whether the pieces work together when somebody has a group to lead.
Month one is recruitment and preparation: bring in a suitable site and reviewers, agree the scope, review privacy and content rights, and complete applicable approvals. In month two, I'll establish baseline tasks, check the presentation, remote and whiteboard workflows, and prepare facilitators. Month three is the supervised live pilot. In month four, I'll analyze the results, address priority problems and publish the findings.
The questions stay close to the work: can facilitators find and present their materials, operate the controls and keep a session moving? I'll make the non-sensitive protocol, feedback tools and reusable pilot materials openly available, so another facilitator can learn from this work instead of having to start from scratch.
I'll judge the pilot by what facilitators can do with the tool, how much effort it takes and what gets in their way. Good intentions still need working wiring. The evaluation will make that visible.
I'll record completion of defined tasks: setting up a presentation, finding materials, moving between content, using the phone remote and working with the whiteboard. I'll compare setup effort and assistance needed, document interruptions and reliability problems, and collect structured facilitator feedback on usability and workload.
The findings will show which workflows are dependable, which need improvement and which should be redesigned. I'll keep a record of changes so the next version follows the evidence rather than my attachment to a feature.
The public report will bring together aggregate results, lessons and practical recommendations, alongside reusable evaluation instruments. A successful project gives facilitators a clearer basis for choosing and using the technology. It also gives me a concrete development plan grounded in their experience, with the rough edges identified and the useful parts demonstrated.
The full $12,000 budget supports preparation, delivery and a useful public evaluation
$3,000: pilot preparation and privacy/content-rights review.
$3,000: founder setup, development and coordination.
$2,500: facilitator usability evaluation.
$1,500: device checks.
$1,000: accessibility review .
$1,000: analysis and public reporting.
At the $8,000 minimum, I'll run a smaller, focused evaluation at one site:
$2,000: privacy/content-rights and protocol review.
$2,000: founder preparation and coordination.
$1,500: facilitator evaluation.
$1,000: accessibility and device checks.
$1,500: analysis, corrections and a public report.
Both versions follow the same four-month sequence: recruit and prepare, establish baseline tasks, conduct the supervised pilot, then analyze, improve and publish. The full budget buys a broader evaluation and more dedicated review; the minimum preserves the essential preparation, supervision and reporting.
I want every dollar tied to a piece of work somebody can point to. I'll track expenses against the budget and document the resulting materials, checks, findings and software improvements. The deliverable is something another facilitator can learn from—not just another feature added to a list.
I'm Ronald Benjamin White, professionally Ben White: a Certified Recovery Specialist and self-taught founder in Kittanning, Pennsylvania. My background includes peer recovery support and group facilitation. That keeps the purpose of SmartGroup close to the ground. The facilitator is there for people; the tool has to support that work.
I've built and tested SmartGroup's prototype. I'm also building Ghostwire, a working private alpha that brings a creator social platform, video, Art Studio, NeonDeck music production and an AI crew into one desktop environment. Scarlett leads the crew; Valerie supports music. Ghostwire is part of the same drive to put useful creative tools within reach of rural and underserved people.
I use a multi-agent AI team as part of my building process and take responsibility for the design, testing and delivery. For this project, I'll lead development and pilot coordination, with funding supporting the site and independent review work described above. I bring both sides to the table: recovery-group experience and the determination to build the tool rather than leave it as an idea.
The main execution risks are site recruitment taking longer than planned, setup proving too complicated, or reliability and accessibility problems getting in the way of the facilitator. I'll address those risks early, while there's still room to make useful changes.
Recruitment and review start in month one. Baseline task testing comes before live use. I'll keep the initial scope focused and use clear criteria for deciding which workflows are ready. If a workflow falls short, I'll revise it and test again rather than carry the problem into a group session.
The pilot's purpose is to learn, so an awkward result still has value if it is documented properly. If SmartGroup adds work instead of helping, the report will explain where and why. If a site cannot proceed, I'll record the preparation and recruitment lessons and agree any necessary scope change with the funder.
The public outputs will preserve what was learned: practical findings, evaluation instruments and a clear account of the changes the evidence calls for. That's how a small pilot can prevent a much larger mistake.
About $1,400 over the last 12 months, all self-funded out of my own pocket. I stretched every dollar to build and test SmartGroup and Ghostwire. This proposal seeks $12,000, with an $8,000 minimum, to fund SmartGroup's first live pilot.
I am also seeking support through Lightcone Commons for a larger version of the same pilot. These are alternative funding routes. If support is awarded through either route, I will update the other request and allocate the work and costs clearly before accepting overlapping support. Each dollar will have one job, one place in the budget and a record of the work it supported.