Follow the revenue
I follow the path from enrollment and tuition categories through instruction and school-of-record attribution, so the model explains how revenue reaches the unit.
Activity→Attribution→Unit revenue
Higher education · RCM financial modeling
Understand your budget.
Evaluate what comes next.
I help higher education teams understand their Responsibility Center Management budgets by tracing the allocation rules, reconciling the baseline, and building Excel models around that foundation.
My approach starts with explaining the budget you have. Then we can evaluate what a proposed change would mean.
The financial picture01—03
Revenue
attributionDirect
expensesShared
allocations
attributionDirect
expensesShared
allocations
01 / EstablishYour baseline budgetA clear view across years
02 / MaintainUpdate the forecastSources & assumptions
03 / ExploreEvaluate a decisionChange from baseline
One financial foundation. Two different questions.
01 / The budget foundation
Start with how
the budget is built.
I begin by understanding how your institution turns activity into attributed revenue, direct expenses, and shared allocations.
I trace the source figures and allocation rules before building scenarios. That means distinguishing what the unit controls from what depends on the university as a whole.
I reconstruct historical budgets and compare the results with reference figures. When they differ, I investigate the source, method, and timing—and explain what remains unresolved.
Separate the costs
I separate direct operating expenses from shared institutional costs, then identify the pools and drivers behind each allocation.
Direct expensesStaffing & operationsShared allocationsInstitutional cost pools
Reconstruct the whole picture
I bring those components together and test the result against historical reference budgets. The baseline should have an explanation, including its adjustments and limitations.
Attributed revenue − direct expenses − shared allocations = financial margin
Simplified structure; the engagement model reflects applicable adjustments.02 / Make the reasoning usable
Make the model
explain its inputs.
I separate institutional rules, observed figures, and forecasting assumptions so each input has a clear purpose.
I design supported input areas around the updates staff need to make. The engagement can include instructions explaining where each figure comes from, what to change, and how it affects the results.
My approach preserves earlier baselines rather than losing the comparison as assumptions change. Where suitable actuals are available, I use selected variance analysis to examine why the outcome differed from the projection.
Forecast & data updateIllustrative interface · proposed deliverable
Your unit
Operating assumptions
Enrollment outlookGrowth assumption
Staffing & teaching capacityStaffing inputs
University context
External conditions
Revenue & support poolsSource figures
Allocation driversDriver assumptions
Institutional rulesObserved dataModeling assumptions
Layout concept, not an editable workbook. Scope and supported inputs are agreed for each engagement.
03 / Evaluate a change
What does growth
actually change?
Once the baseline is understood, I trace a proposed change through the same financial relationships. I separate its immediate costs from revenue and allocation effects that arrive later.
01
Student composition
I examine how enrollment, residency mix, and credit hours flow through instruction and record attribution.
02
Faculty & capacity
I connect compensation and teaching capacity to the staffing needed to support the proposed activity.
03
Financial timing
I make the timing explicit, so an early cost and a later benefit do not disappear into one total.
Illustrative example · fictional dataA fictional academic unit
This example shows why I keep the baseline, the proposed case, and the change separate. Select a prepared case to follow the timing. Every figure and allocation rule here is invented.
Five-year comparison
Baseline
Cumulative change from baseline$0
The reference budget holds revenue and costs constant. Compare it with a proposed change to see the incremental effect.
$0Year 1
$0Year 2
$0Year 3
$0Year 4
$0Year 5
Annual change in margin · USD Increase Decrease
Year 1
- Attributed revenue
- $12,000,000
- Direct costs
- $8,000,000
- Shared allocations
- $2,000,000
- Scenario margin
- $2,000,000
- Baseline margin
- $2,000,000
- Change
- $0
Year 2
- Attributed revenue
- $12,000,000
- Direct costs
- $8,000,000
- Shared allocations
- $2,000,000
- Scenario margin
- $2,000,000
- Baseline margin
- $2,000,000
- Change
- $0
Year 3
- Attributed revenue
- $12,000,000
- Direct costs
- $8,000,000
- Shared allocations
- $2,000,000
- Scenario margin
- $2,000,000
- Baseline margin
- $2,000,000
- Change
- $0
Year 4
- Attributed revenue
- $12,000,000
- Direct costs
- $8,000,000
- Shared allocations
- $2,000,000
- Scenario margin
- $2,000,000
- Baseline margin
- $2,000,000
- Change
- $0
Year 5
- Attributed revenue
- $12,000,000
- Direct costs
- $8,000,000
- Shared allocations
- $2,000,000
- Scenario margin
- $2,000,000
- Baseline margin
- $2,000,000
- Change
- $0
What this example assumes
The starting budget
Each year: $12m in attributed revenue, $8m in direct costs, and $2m in shared allocations. Baseline margin is $2m.
Enrollment growth
40 additional students, split evenly between two fictional tuition categories, generate $400,000 gross annually. 75% ($300,000) reaches the unit from year 2. Added direct costs are $120,000 from year 1; shared allocations rise $30,000 from year 3.
Growth with a hire
The same revenue, with $100,000 annual salary and benefits plus $20,000 other annual costs replacing the growth case’s $120,000 provision. Add $15,000 setup in year 1. Shared allocations rise $40,000 from year 3.
Five years, nominal dollars, constant activity, no discounting. The invented attribution rate and timing isolate the mechanics. The cases do not optimize enrollment or represent a client workbook or Scenario Studio.
04 / Experience behind the work
Public university experience.
Detailed financial work.
My experience includes building an Excel financial model within a public university’s Responsibility Center Management budgeting system.
Trace the budget back to its mechanics.
I reconstructed historical published budgets across changes in allocation methodology, compared model outputs with reference figures, and investigated remaining differences.
Connect enrollment and hiring to outcomes.
I built Student Growth and Faculty Hire interfaces over the underlying financial model to explore revenue, direct costs, allocation effects, and multiyear changes.
Explain the reasoning as questions arise.
I presented the model and discussed scenarios with leadership, making assumptions and the timing of financial effects part of the conversation.
Prior professional experience. Further verification, documentation, and staff handoff remain in development.
05 / Working together
Build the model.
Explain how to use it.
I agree the question, available sources, supported updates, and verification boundaries with your team before defining the deliverables.
I plan the handoff as part of the work: a guide to the model’s reasoning, operating instructions, videos, and walkthroughs for designated staff. The goal is independent use within the agreed boundaries.
Discuss the scope ↗Budgeting & forecasting
The budget foundation becomes an Excel model of annual revenue, expenses, allocations, and margin, with supported update areas and an explanation of the components.
Supported what-if interfaces
The agreed decisions become enrollment and staffing interfaces, with baseline, scenario, and incremental results. Any optimization needs a separately defined objective and constraints.
Reconciliation & variance analysis
Historical comparisons and selected budget-versus-actuals analysis document how the model relates to available records, including explained differences and repeatable procedures.
Verification & staff instruction
Checks and known limitations accompany the model. Guidance and walkthroughs cover supported updates, interpretation, and when a change needs further model work.
06 / What I’m building
Scenario Studio · In development
From the analyst’s model
to a shared understanding.
A separate software exploration for presenting financial scenarios as guided decision experiences.
The intended approach keeps Excel responsible for calculations and the analyst responsible for defining assumptions, comparisons, and meaning.
Currently a browser prototype using fictional data. Shared access, Microsoft integration, and independent workbook calculation are not available.
Decision SpaceConcept preview
BaselineAlternative
A question. A comparison.
The context to interpret it.
The context to interpret it.
Selected assumptionsFinancial effectsAnalyst explanation
Illustrative layout · no connected workbook
Start with the budget you are trying to explain
Let’s understand
what sits behind the numbers.
Tell me about your institution’s budgeting system, the differences you are trying to reconcile, or the decision you need to evaluate.