I think other answers do a pretty good job of covering most of the issues. I would just like to add a few points:
- The biggest bottleneck to the advance of civilization is the available energy
- The biggest bottleneck to a fast-forward of civilization is domestication
Major advances in human history usually occur when humans learn to harness a new energy source, whether it's fire (from wood, peat, animal dung), water (dams, water wheels), animals (draft horses, cows, etc.), fossil fuel (coal, oil), steam, nuclear, etc.
Food/agriculture is, of course, the most essential energy source, as it is necessary to maintain the most important machine in your plan: the humans. However, despite the popularity of slavery over much of early human history, humans are not actually the best draft animals. They have fairly picky food requirements compared to herbivores, they mature slowly, and they are on the weaker side when it comes to muscle density/power-to-weight. Your enterprise will go much faster if you can herd and harness draft animals.
But first, just think about something simple like your basic cheeseburger. You also want cattle because they give you high-quality protein and fat via beef and milk. This alone solves a good chunk of your food problem. Growing a cow is roughly equivalent to feeding several humans on wild pastures. Given the primitive state of technology, you need every bootstrapping advantage you can get.
You should be able to build crude windmills and water wheels even with stone age technology. This will give you some decent energy with a modest investment of time and effort. Of course, you need the relevant wind and water resources nearby, but you can always relocate your budding civilization to favorable locations. It should also be very feasible to build low, basic dams in 100 years on at least small to medium size rivers. This should give you pretty significant draft power near such rivers.
Unfortunately, a windmill is not very useful for plowing fields, which you need to be doing pretty heavily to start up agriculture. You need mobile power. You need draft animals. And this is where things get tricky. While human plow teams can certainly do the job inefficiently, they aren't going to do it nearly as well as oxen that you can feed on wild pastures/hay. And animals have not been domesticated 10 kya (except maybe cats, but I'd really love to see a plow team of cats!!!).
We don't know exactly how long it takes to domesticate an animals, but even the most optimistic estimates would be on the order of dozens of generations. It may have taken more than 1000 years to domesticate chickens. While you can cheat on the plant species by bringing seeds, as others have suggested, it is probably also highly desirable to bring a box of newly hatched chicks. A diverse population of baby pigs, cows and horses would also get you around the domestication trap, but now size is a considerable constraint.
You obviously wanted to limit the technology that the time travelers could bring with them, to see how far they could get on a "pure knowledge bootstrap". Well, seeds or chicks/calfs/lambs could be seen as "cheating" in this respect. If not, then you must also consider other "non-electrical" cheats, like a hammer and a saw. Obviously, bringing a few steel saws, a few smithing hammers, chisels, and other passive tools would be a massive help in making precision cuts for your mills, quarrying stone for dams/bridges/foundations/etc.
If you think about how labor intensive the production of a single stone hammer is, you can see that even if you are able to build a primitive bloomery, you'll still need a fair number of stone tools to make productive use of the crude iron you're able to produce. You can expect most useful, productive stone tools to take hundreds, if not thousands of hours to produce. Just getting out of the Stone Age is going to take a lot of back-breaking manual labor!
As many have noted, one of the biggest bottlenecks to industrialization is raw population size. A modern economy has thousands of niches which must be filled by large numbers of workers. 10k citizens may sound like a lot of people to you, but only because you live in a globalized society. You don't need all 7+ billion people to produce the computer that you wrote this question on, but you would be hard-pressed to do it with less than a million. You need mines all over the world to access productive sources of rare earth elements, and so at some point you will need a truly global population.
While you probably don't need the entire Isle of Britain to launch an industrial revolution, it should be instructive to note that in the 1800s, the UK had a population between 10 and 15 million citizens. I would be very impressed if you could repeat that feat with 10% of their population.
Now, Seallussus did some math on population, and I will finish the math. If we define a 15-year generation, then you can fit 6 generations in 90 years. With a 10x growth rate per generation, you get a $10^6$, or 1 million x population growth in less than a century! That's pretty good, but it requires each woman to average 20 children, which is about 1 child per year for 20 years, from 15-35. If women continue to bear children until menopause, you get some wiggle room for infant mortality, occasional infertility, accidental premature deaths, etc.
Frankly, I think that an average of 20 children per woman is pushing the limits of human capability. Although a woman is attested to have birthed a whopping 69 children (no, that's not a joke), the fact that the list includes women who had "merely" 20 children suggests that this is pretty unusual. Modern societies have a high of 6-7 children per woman (c.f. Niger). Thus, I find 10 children per woman to be near the edge of believability, especially for an entire civilization. This only gives you a 5x multiplier, and $5^6 = 15,625$. Fortunately, that still gives you a population of 15+ million citizens, which, as we saw above, is right about the population of Britain during the Industrial Revolution. The 1,000,000 x multiplier would give a population of 10 billion, which isn't plausible unless you really nailed every single technology in perfect synchrony and spread across the globe in 100 years.
Note that if a woman has 10 children, the next generation will have 10x the people, but only half of them will be females (on average), so this only results in a long-term growth of 5x. But, each generation will actually have 2x the predicted population because of all those useless, non-birthing males sitting around watching football and demanding beer. So you could lower the birth rate even more to 8 children per woman, for a 4x generation multiplier, or $4^6 = 4,096$x total multiplier, giving a final generation population of about 8.2 million citizens. This is well within the realm of plausible birth rates, and still gives you a very useful population size.
Although most other answers mention war, I think your story would be much more awesome if your civilization simply awed would-be competitors with their awesomeness, and everyone wanted to join under peaceful conditions. It would also save significant resources if they didn't have to divert time and materials to swords, armor, and guns. Remember, you not only have a technology race on your hands, but a population race. The rest of the world is not going to be enjoying your 8x technology-driven population boom, so any armed conflict is going to be a hit to your population growth/target.
Totally agree with the answers which value CEOs near the bottom of the ladder of usefulness. You want agricultural scientists, geologists, metallurgists, chemists, doctors (both to treat the existing population and to teach), but 1 thing more than all the rest: teachers!
You see, trying to teach adult stone age humans English (or any other language) is going to be a constant uphill battle. Teaching children, on the other hand, shouldn't be that much more difficult than teaching children today. After all, we mostly carry around cave man brains to school. So, consider the first generation on arrival as your least-useful bootstrappers. They can do grunt work via mime and direct apprenticeship, but probably not worth it to try teaching them to read and inspect blueprints.
On the other hand, you need the women to pump out babies like they are going out of style, and you want every one of those kids to have a 21st century education, to the extent you can make that possible. Assuming your population has mostly uniform ages from 0-60, you will have 1,000 children (about 10% of the population) aged 6-12. If you bring 50 teachers, you can maintain a student:teacher ratio of 20:1. Not ideal, but pretty typical for a modern day classroom. But wait! That's not enough! You don't want to quit with just an elementary education! You want to give them at least 12 years of instruction, which will require 2x the teachers to maintain the class size...that's 100 teachers! But now you have a problem...the next generation is going to be 4x the size, and you can't bring 400 teachers. You need to train teachers, and to do that well, you need more than 12 years of instruction. You need closer to 18 years. So you probably need to increase class sizes to 30:1, because not only do you need 300 new teachers from this generation, you will want scientists, mathematicians, engineers, biochemists, and everything else as well!
So, you have 3,000 citizens in the range 6-24, and 100 teachers each teaching a class of 30 students, which I'd say is on the edge of practicality. And 20 folks left over to bootstrap iron-making, geological exploration, sanitation, agriculture, and everything else you need. I can tell you right now that none of them need to be (or ought to be) CEOs, artists, or philosophers.