UK Higher Education: Finance and Strategy

Structure, insight,
and judgement in
education finance.

ACCA-qualified finance and strategy professional specialising in UK higher education. TRAC compliance, capital appraisal, FP&A transformation, and strategic financial modelling.

ACCA Member MSc Financial Management, Distinction HE Finance & Strategy
£4.5m
Overhead uplift by 2030
£100m
Largest capital project appraised
20+
Estates projects delivered
£30m+
Portfolio under FBP oversight
Oracle ERP
Oracle Fusion Specialist
£50m
Pricing decisions portfolio
About

I am an ACCA-qualified finance and strategy professional shaped by seven years of work at the intersection of regulatory compliance, capital investment, and financial transformation in UK higher education.

My approach is consistent regardless of the problem: impose structure on complexity, build a model that is transparent and defensible, and translate the findings into decisions that senior leaders can act on with confidence. My track record spans TRAC returns that have satisfied OfS and external audit scrutiny, financial models accepted at University Executive Board level, and transformation projects selected as institutional blueprints.

I am drawn to the boutique strategy consulting model: bringing structured thinking and genuine sector expertise to situations of real financial consequence, rather than applying generic frameworks to problems that require specific knowledge of how education institutions actually work.

UK higher education is at a genuinely consequential moment. The financial pressures facing the sector are not temporary disruptions but structural shifts that will determine which institutions flourish and which contract. The conversation about how universities navigate that shift is most useful when it is grounded in how institutions actually work. This website is a small contribution to that conversation, a place to share thinking on the strategies, frameworks, and decisions that matter most, in the hope that something here is useful to the people working on these challenges every day.

Insights

Perspectives on HE finance and strategy.

June 2026
TRAC / FP&A
Why UK universities should approach the TRAC return with an FP&A lens
Most HEIs treat TRAC as compliance. The institutions recovering the most funding treat it as a planning tool.
Read
June 2026
RESEARCH STRATEGY
The Research Portfolio Index: a structured framework for research investment decisions
Research investment in most HEIs lacks a consistent analytical framework. A Research Portfolio Index changes that.
Read
June 2026
INCOME STRATEGY
Why now is the right time for UK universities to launch a Masters in Family Business Management
The postgraduate market for family business leadership is almost entirely unserved in the UK.
Read
June 2026
CAPITAL APPRAISAL
The Green Book in higher education: how to apply HM Treasury's appraisal framework correctly
Most UK universities apply the Green Book inconsistently. Here are the four most common errors.
Read
June 2026
FP&A TRANSFORMATION
Why most HEI management accounts are still broken and how to fix them
Too long to produce. Too little insight when they arrive. There is a practical fix.
Read
August 2026
INVESTMENT STRATEGY
Is university research an investable asset?
The honest answer is: not yet. But the question is the right one, and the barriers are smaller than most investors assume.
Read
August 2026
CAPITAL STRATEGY
Why UK universities should open their doors to full private placement into capital projects
The Legal and General model worked. It should not have been an exception. It should be the template.
Read
August 2026
GLOBAL STRATEGY
Why more UK universities should consider foreign expansion to India, and why the time is right now
India has granted permission for foreign universities to award degrees on Indian soil for the first time. The window will not stay open forever.
Read
August 2026
ESTATES STRATEGY
Is shared estate the future of university estates capital?
UK universities are sitting on billions of pounds of underutilised estate. There is a structural solution hiding in plain sight.
Read
September 2026
TRAC STRATEGY
Using TRAC Strategically: the missing link between research income and financial sustainability
Most institutions focus on income diversification and cost reduction. The overhead recovery lever sits inside the TRAC return, largely untouched.
Read
September 2026
OVERHEAD STRATEGY
Why universities should implement an overhead allocation model: Cost to Acquire vs Cost to Serve
A blended overhead rate tells you the average cost. It does not tell you the marginal cost of the next unit of activity. That distinction changes every growth decision.
Read
September 2026
INCOME STRATEGY
Why universities should support student entrepreneurship
Universities are uniquely positioned to support student founders. The equity-based model does something rare it generates financial returns and educational outcomes from the same investment.
Read
Track Record

A portfolio of consequential work.

Nine projects. Real institutions. Real financial consequences.

REGULATORY COMPLIANCE
TRAC Compliance Transformation
Full compliance in Year 1
Context
Full lifecycle ownership of the OfS TRAC return across three annual cycles. Cost drivers and activity data required systematic review and correction. Tasked with diagnosing methodology gaps and rebuilding the model from the ground up.
Approach
Redesigned cost drivers across all allocation pools. Ran a structured technician survey to rebuild space weighting. Rebuilt the lab charge-out rate methodology. All changes reviewed and signed off by external audit.
Tools
Advanced Excel · Oracle Fusion · Activity-Based Costing · OfS TRAC Guidance
Impact: Full compliance achieved in Year 1 following methodology redesign. Significant uplift in lab and non-lab charge-out rates. Sustained overhead recovery improvement projected through 2030. CFO and DVC commendation.
CAPITAL APPRAISAL
CHASE Project: £100m capital investment appraisal
£100m
Context
The institution's largest ever capital commitment with no existing model or precedent. University Executive Board required a full appraisal before approving the scheme.
Approach
Built the DCF model from first principles revenue assumptions, construction phasing, cost of capital, sensitivities, and NPV/IRR/MIRR outputs. Applied Green Book methodology throughout. Presented to UEB.
Tools
Advanced Excel · DCF Modelling · Green Book · NPV / IRR / MIRR · Scenario Analysis
Impact: Model accepted by the University Executive Board. Project approved. Template adopted as the institutional standard for all future capital appraisals.
COMMERCIAL STRATEGY
NESST: value-based pricing for a £50m research facility
£472k tariff approved
Context
A £50m capital project required a commercially defensible lab space pricing methodology that would satisfy both internal governance and external research funders.
Approach
Built the NESST pricing model: full activity-based cost allocation, occupancy-weighted rate calculation, and a 20% commercial margin. Benchmarked against sector rates. Incorporated premium multiplier for specialist spaces.
Tools
Advanced Excel · Activity-Based Costing · Overhead Rate Modelling · Commercial Benchmarking
Impact: £472k annual tariff approved. £488,870 projected charge in FY25-26. Model used to support funder negotiations and board approval.
ESTATES FINANCE
Space Audit and Space Weighting Model
+£640k per year
Context
£40m estate expenditure pool allocated on stale assumptions. Space weightings had not been reviewed for several years, constraining overhead recovery rates on research.
Approach
Led a full estate space audit across all building categories. Rebuilt the space weighting model with differentiated weights for specialist research, teaching, and office space. Integrated outputs into TRAC allocation.
Tools
Advanced Excel · TRAC Space Weighting · Estate Data · Oracle Fusion
Impact: +£640k per year additional overhead recovery. Weighting methodology adopted as institutional standard and passed external audit without qualification.
REGULATORY COMPLIANCE
Condition of the Estates Return: inaugural Research England submission
Research England
Context
The institution had never submitted a CoTE return to Research England. Direct implications for research capital funding eligibility. No existing methodology or precedent.
Approach
Built the full CoTE framework from scratch: data collection across all estate categories, condition assessment integration, financial modelling of maintenance backlog, and narrative submission to Research England.
Tools
Advanced Excel · Research England CoTE Guidance · Estate Data · Financial Modelling
Impact: Successful inaugural submission accepted by Research England. Received the institutional GEM Award for contribution to the return.
FINANCE BUSINESS PARTNERING
Finance Business Partnering: £30m+ directorate portfolio
20% cost savings confirmed
Context
Acting FBP for a multi-service £30m+ directorate with significant non-staff cost pressures and a £3.2m savings challenge. Directorate had no dedicated finance partner.
Approach
Delivered QCIR presentations, non-staff variance analysis, journal preparation, and a structured savings tracker. Identified and confirmed £1.84m (57%) of the £3.2m target through line-by-line analysis.
Tools
Oracle Fusion · Power BI · Advanced Excel · Management Accounts · Board Reporting
Impact: £1.84m savings confirmed (57% of target). QCIR presented to senior leadership. Tracker adopted across directorate as standard reporting tool.
FINANCE TRANSFORMATION
Oracle Fusion ERP: Chart of Accounts and GL Lead
Led BaU and University-wide Restructure
Context
SAP-to-Oracle Fusion migration required a finance-side lead to own COA design and GL implementation across the institution.
Approach
Led COA redesign: 102 cost centre changes across six categories, new analysis code framework for estates and projects, and end-to-end testing of Oracle Fusion GL mapping.
Tools
Oracle Fusion · SAP Finance · Chart of Accounts Design · ERP Implementation
Impact: Led BaU operations and university-wide chart of accounts restructure. Oracle Fusion live on schedule.
OPTIONS APPRAISAL
PGT Alumni Discount: NPV options model
£587k/yr saving identified
Context
The alumni discount policy had never been financially modelled. The University Executive Board needed a structured options appraisal before extending the scheme.
Approach
Built a full NPV model across five discount scenarios: net revenue impact, student volume assumptions, sensitivity analysis, and a recommended option with supporting rationale.
Tools
Advanced Excel · NPV Modelling · Revenue Sensitivity Analysis · Scenario Planning
Impact: £587k per year saving identified under the recommended option. Model presented to UEB. Policy decision informed by the appraisal.
FINANCIAL MODELLING
Programme Costing Model: institution-wide blueprint
Institution-wide
Context
The Faculty of Health and Wellbeing had no mechanism to understand the true cost of delivering individual programmes. No existing tool or methodology existed.
Approach
Built a Power Query / Power Pivot star schema model with DAX measures, cascading dropdowns, and programme-level contribution analysis. Reviewed by the Director of FP&A.
Tools
Power Query · Power Pivot · DAX · Advanced Excel · Activity-Based Costing
Impact: Model reviewed and adopted by the Director of FP&A as the institutional blueprint for programme costing across all faculties.
What If

The Solution Hub.

Each issue explored in this blog has a strategic pathway. Select a topic below, then move through five focused frames showing what changes, how quickly, and what it takes to get there.

TRAC / FP&A
TRAC as a planning tool
What if you treated TRAC as strategy?
Research Strategy
Research Portfolio Index
What if research had a valuation framework?
Income Strategy
Family Business Masters
What if you moved first?
Capital Strategy
Private Placement
What if you opened the door to institutional capital?
Global Strategy
India Expansion
What if you committed to India now?
Estates Strategy
Shared Estate
What if you built the SPV model?
Investment Strategy
Research Investability
What if you built the infrastructure?
FP&A Transformation
Management Accounts
What if reporting actually worked?
Capital Appraisal
Green Book Discipline
What if every capital bid was properly appraised?
Financial Modelling
Programme Costing
What if you could see the true cost of every programme?
The Shift
Quick Wins
The Model
Governance
The Payoff
Frame 01 of 05
Stop filing TRAC. Start using it.
  • Most TRAC returns are built to satisfy OfS, then shelved until next year
  • The same methodology that calculates compliance also calculates commercial opportunity
  • The shift is not technical: it is a mindset change in how Finance owns the return
The gap
Compliance vs strategy
Same model. Completely different financial outcome depending on how seriously you take the inputs.
Frame 02 of 05
Three inputs that move the number immediately.
  • Technician activity survey: update annually, not on a five-year cycle
  • Cost drivers: validate against actual workload model data, not prior-year defaults
  • Space weightings: conduct a full audit and reclassify where estate use has shifted
Typical improvement
+100% to +150% on charge-out rates
Lab and non-lab rates that were set on stale assumptions often double when validated data is applied.
Frame 03 of 05
Connect the TRAC model to your MTFP.
  • TRAC charge-out rates directly determine overhead recovered on every grant
  • If your medium-term plan projects research income growth, the charge-out rate is a lever not a given
  • Update rates annually and run the five-year overhead recovery projection as a standard output
Planning horizon
£4.5m cumulative uplift over 5 years
From a single institution where the TRAC model was properly connected to financial planning.
Frame 04 of 05
Move TRAC into strategic finance governance.
  • TRAC should be owned by Finance, not a regulatory reporting function operating in isolation
  • FBP and FP&A teams should see TRAC outputs quarterly, not annually
  • External audit sign-off on methodology changes provides the confidence to be bolder
Governance change
TRAC into the Finance Leadership agenda
One structural change. The feedback loops that make TRAC strategically useful begin to exist.
Frame 05 of 05
The financial case for doing this now.
  • Every year of delay is a year of foregone overhead recovery at the higher rate
  • Full compliance with OfS requirements achieved in Year 1 of the remediation programme cost
  • Better TRAC data directly improves the quality of your medium-term financial plan
Net position
Low cost. High return. Immediate start.
No new staff, no new systems. Better data applied to the methodology you already have.
The Problem
The Framework
Five Dimensions
The Conversation
REF 2029
Frame 01 of 05
Research investment without a framework is not strategy. It is instinct.
  • Most institutions allocate research investment through relationship, precedent, and institutional priority-setting
  • No consistent scoring means no defensible basis for saying yes to one unit and no to another
  • In a constrained environment, the absence of a framework is itself a strategic risk
The cost of no framework
Cross-subsidy with no visibility
Strong units carry weak ones silently. The Finance team cannot see it. The PVC cannot defend it.
Frame 02 of 05
The RPI is a scoring model, not a decision machine.
  • A weighted, multi-factor score for each research unit applied consistently across the portfolio
  • Weights are set by the institution to reflect its own strategic priorities
  • The output is a structured basis for conversation, not a ranking that replaces judgement
What it produces
A shared language for Finance and academic leadership
When both sides work from the same analytical framework, the conversations change.
Frame 03 of 05
Five dimensions. All drawn from data you already hold.
  • Research income trajectory: actual and pipeline, five-year view
  • Overhead recovery rate: TRAC-derived, benchmarked against sector
  • REF impact score: current position and 2029 trajectory
  • Pipeline strength: probability-weighted bids, risk-adjusted
  • Commercial readiness: IP, spinouts, KTP depth
Data sources
TRAC, HESA, REF, HE-BCI
All five dimensions use data your institution already produces. No new collection required.
Frame 04 of 05
The RPI changes the governance conversation at board level.
  • Research investment decisions become presentable to Finance Committee with a defensible methodology
  • Cross-subsidy becomes visible and governable rather than implicit and unmanaged
  • Audit committees can assess whether resource allocation is consistent with stated strategy
Governance benefit
Decisions that governors can actually scrutinise
Research investment becomes part of the financial governance framework, not separate from it.
Frame 05 of 05
REF 2029 makes this urgent, not optional.
  • 2028 outputs determine the next decade of QR funding: the window to influence them is now
  • Institutions investing in the right units today will compound the benefit through the funding formula
  • Those without a framework will make the same decisions they have always made and get the same results
Timeline
Two years to influence REF 2029 outcomes
Build the framework in 2026. Make better investment decisions in 2026 and 2027. See the return from 2030.
The Gap
The Student
The Numbers
Programme Design
First Mover
Frame 01 of 05
There is no UK Masters in Family Business Management. That is the opportunity.
  • Family businesses generate the majority of economic output in most major economies
  • No UK institution offers a dedicated Masters-level qualification for family business successors
  • The market exists. The programme does not. That gap is the entire strategic case.
Market status
Uncontested. For now.
First-mover advantage in HE markets closes within five years of the first credible entrant.
Frame 02 of 05
This student is not a typical international postgraduate.
  • Family-funded, not loan-funded: less price-sensitive, more selective on quality and relevance
  • Already working in or preparing to lead a real business: they want applicable knowledge, not credentials for CVs
  • From South and Southeast Asia, the Gulf, Africa, Latin America: diversified beyond traditional markets
Student profile
Business successor. Family-funded. Premium segment.
This cohort values network, relevance, and reputation above league table position.
Frame 03 of 05
The financial case at 80 students is already compelling.
  • Students are family-funded, not loan-dependent: the segment commands a premium fee point that covers full delivery cost
  • Cohort size is achievable from year two given the uncontested market and targeted outreach to family business networks
  • Alumni endowment and executive education contracts add a long-tail revenue stream unlike most postgraduate programmes
Revenue character
New income. Uncontested market. Premium segment.
This cohort is not currently being recruited by any UK institution. The income is genuinely additional.
Frame 04 of 05
The programme design is straightforward. The content already exists.
  • Governance and succession, family firm finance, international business strategy, M&A and exit planning
  • Practitioner faculty draw: family business founders and advisors as visiting lecturers
  • Two to three specialist academic hires; the rest deliverable from existing business school faculty
Capital requirement
Low. Curriculum + 2-3 hires.
Recoverable within two cohort cycles under conservative enrolment assumptions.
Frame 05 of 05
The window for first-mover advantage is a specific number of years.
  • Once one institution builds a credible programme with alumni in real businesses, the network effect closes
  • International student markets move by reputation and word of mouth: early alumni do the recruiting
  • The succession wave in Asian and Gulf family businesses peaks in the next five to eight years
Decision point
2026 launch or cede the category
There is no middle position. Either you are building the network or someone else is.
The Gap
What Investors Need
The Structure
The Cost Argument
The Barrier
Frame 01 of 05
The maintenance backlog is the symptom. The financing gap is the disease.
  • Grant capital, internal surplus, and bank debt are all under simultaneous pressure
  • A growing pipeline of capital projects cannot be funded through any combination of current tools
  • Private placement is not a niche alternative: it is a mainstream institutional capital market
Scale of the market
£50m to £500m per transaction
At the scale universities need. Without the complexity of a bond issuance.
Frame 02 of 05
Institutional investors want exactly what universities have.
  • Long-duration assets: 25 to 50 year investment horizon: matches liability profiles of pension funds and insurers
  • Predictable cash flows: student accommodation income, lease income, research facility hire
  • Creditworthy counterparty: universities are public institutions with diversified income and low default risk
Investor appetite
High. Infrastructure scarce. Universities fit the profile.
The demand from institutional investors for this asset type has consistently exceeded supply.
Frame 03 of 05
The transaction structure is replicable.
  • University identifies an asset with a defined income stream: PBSA, research facility, academic building
  • Institutional investor provides financing under a concession or long-term lease structure
  • University retains full operational control; investor receives inflation-linked return over 25 to 50 years
Precedent
£100m transaction. Delivered. Operational.
The structure has been tested at institutional scale in UK higher education. It works.
Frame 04 of 05
More expensive than grant. Cheaper than crisis.
  • Private placement pricing sits between government grant (unavailable at scale) and distressed bank refinancing
  • Covenant-light compared to bank debt: universities retain more financial flexibility
  • No refinancing risk over the life of the transaction: the rate is locked at inception
True cost comparison
Bank debt + refinancing risk vs long-term fixed rate
The full-cycle cost of bank debt consistently underestimates covenant and refinancing risk.
Frame 05 of 05
The barrier is capability, not appetite.
  • Treasury teams without private placement structuring experience: a training and advisory gap
  • Governors unfamiliar with the format: an education and presentation gap
  • Finance directors without the investment case vocabulary: a communication gap
What needs to change
One transaction. Then it becomes institutional knowledge.
The capability barrier dissolves after the first successful transaction. The second is always faster.
Why India
The Regulatory Shift
The Model
The Numbers
The Window
Frame 01 of 05
India is not one of several options. It is the option.
  • Largest population in the world, significantly younger demographic than China
  • English medium of instruction in elite HE: no curriculum translation barrier
  • Middle class growing rapidly with documented high willingness to pay for internationally recognised qualifications
Market size
Third largest economy by 2028
Acute demand for graduates with credentials that carry currency with international counterparties.
Frame 02 of 05
The 2023 UGC amendment changed everything.
  • Foreign universities can now establish campuses in India and award degrees in their own name
  • This is a structural regulatory change, not a pilot or a special zone arrangement
  • The Indian government is actively courting foreign institutions with land and infrastructure support offers
Regulatory status
Open. Government-backed. First come.
Institutions that enter now shape the implementation of a framework designed around them.
Frame 03 of 05
The partnership model reduces capital exposure to manageable levels.
  • Indian institution or real estate developer provides physical campus infrastructure
  • UK university provides academic content, curriculum, quality assurance, and degree-awarding authority
  • Capital commitment reduces to management fee, academic staff deployment, and quality oversight
Capital model
Asset-light. IP-heavy.
The UK university contributes what it uniquely has: academic reputation and degree-awarding power.
Frame 04 of 05
The revenue model is commercially viable within five years.
  • Fee range: £8,000 to £12,000 per year: 40% to 60% of UK campus fee, significant premium to Indian domestic
  • Steady-state enrolment of 1,500 to 2,000 students: £12m to £24m annual revenue
  • Break-even typically at year three to four under the partnership model
Steady-state revenue
£12m to £24m per year
A genuinely new income stream not competing with existing UK-campus recruitment.
Frame 05 of 05
This window does not stay open for a second governance cycle.
  • Institutions entering in 2025 and 2026 will build alumni networks that become their own marketing
  • The succession wave in Indian family businesses: the primary demand source: peaks in the next five to eight years
  • By 2030 the market will have preferred partners and the cost of entry will be materially higher
Cost of waiting
Ceding the market to competitors who move faster
In international HE, the governance process of the institution that waits funds the marketing of the one that moved.
The Problem
What to Share
The SPV Model
The Financial Case
The Real Barrier
Frame 01 of 05
The estate is used for 30% to 40% of available hours. The liability is 100%.
  • Libraries, lecture theatres, labs, and sports facilities sit empty for the majority of each week
  • Average maintenance backlog: 15% to 25% of estimated replacement cost
  • For a £500m estate: a £75m to £125m liability that cannot be funded from current income
The structural problem
Full cost. Partial use. No shared model.
Every university within commuting distance of another is duplicating assets that neither fully uses.
Frame 02 of 05
Three asset categories are immediately sharable without compromising institutional identity.
  • Student accommodation: no educational reason for institution-specific ownership
  • Non-specialist teaching space: generic lecture theatres and seminar rooms have no institution-specific characteristics
  • Research infrastructure: large-scale equipment and HPC that most institutions underutilise individually
Shared estate ≠ merger
Infrastructure shared. Identity retained.
Students attend their own institution. They use shared infrastructure. These are not the same thing.
Frame 03 of 05
The SPV model exists in healthcare and transport. It needs to exist in HE.
  • Property special purpose vehicle jointly owned by participating institutions
  • Issues bonds or attracts private placement financing against the shared asset income stream
  • Each institution contributes in proportion to usage and benefits from the larger financing base
Vehicle type
Property SPV. Bond or private placement funded.
The NHS has used shared infrastructure vehicles for decades. The model is proven elsewhere.
Frame 04 of 05
The financial case is compelling at the consortium level.
  • Shared financing base means better credit rating and lower borrowing cost per institution
  • Shared maintenance pool means lower per-institution lifecycle cost
  • Higher utilisation means better return per pound of capital employed across the shared portfolio
Financial outcome
Lower cost. Higher utilisation. Shared risk.
Three institutions sharing one well-located teaching building always out-finance three institutions separately maintaining three underused ones.
Frame 05 of 05
The barrier is not financial. It is institutional.
  • Governance structures built for single-institution decision-making slow joint action to a standstill
  • Competitive instinct treats collaboration as concession rather than efficiency
  • Finance teams that have never modelled shared ownership structures default to the familiar
The choice
Build the shared model or argue about which maintenance projects to defer
The maintenance backlog does not wait for governance cycles to complete.
The Gap
Valuation
Deal Structures
The Platform
Why Now
Frame 01 of 05
Research has the economics of an investable asset. It lacks the infrastructure.
  • UKRI grant income is contractual and predictable, underpinned by government-backed counterparties
  • Overhead recovery is calculable and benchmarkable through TRAC
  • REF performance links directly to future QR funding through a defined formula
The missing element
Valuation + deal structure + regulated platform
All three are buildable. None of them exist at scale today.
Frame 02 of 05
A standardised Research Investment Scorecard makes comparison possible.
  • Five dimensions: research income, overhead recovery, REF impact, pipeline strength, commercial readiness
  • Applied consistently across all 140+ UK HEIs using data already published in TRAC and HESA returns
  • Produces a composite score that sits alongside financial statements in investor due diligence
Investor requirement
Comparable. Consistent. Auditable.
The Scorecard creates what is currently impossible: cross-institutional research investment comparison.
Frame 03 of 05
Three FCA-compliant deal structures cover the full investor spectrum.
  • Research co-investment: private capital alongside UKRI grants, returns via commercialisation and IP
  • Pooled research income funds: collective investment schemes across diversified HEI pipeline portfolios
  • Impact vehicles: donor-advised and endowment structures for family offices and foundations
Regulatory pathway
FCA authorisation. Built in from day one.
Not a directory or a matching service. A regulated investment platform.
Frame 04 of 05
A dedicated deal room for every onboarded university.
  • Investor-facing page presenting each institution's portfolio with verified KPI data and benchmarking
  • Live pipeline data: probability-weighted forward income, bid status, commercialisation trajectory
  • Structured investment opportunity disclosure within FCA-compliant deal flows
Platform model
One platform. Every UK HEI. Every serious investor.
The first regulated access point to UK university research as a financial asset class.
Frame 05 of 05
Three forces make this the moment to build.
  • QR funding has declined in real terms for a decade: private capital is the structural answer
  • REF 2029 creates a defined investment window with a calculable return horizon
  • FCA regulatory framework has matured to the point where a research investment platform is genuinely authorisable
The distance remaining
Infrastructure, not economics
The institutions and investors who build the infrastructure first will define how UK research is financed for the next generation.
What is Broken
The Lag Problem
The Fix
Dashboard Design
The Shift
Frame 01 of 05
The management accounts pack is failing its only job: communicating the financial position.
  • Too long to produce: five to ten working days of manual extraction and reformatting
  • Too little insight when it arrives: every variance for every cost centre, same format regardless of materiality
  • No financial narrative: what happened is described but not why, and not what it means
The result
Leaders make decisions without current financial information
A pack that arrives two to three weeks after month-end does not inform. It documents.
Frame 02 of 05
In a fast-moving savings programme, a two-week lag is damaging.
  • Cost pressures that need a response in week two are being reported in week five
  • Budget holders cannot manage in real time against information that is three weeks old
  • The Finance team spends most of its time producing the pack, not understanding what it says
Hidden cost
Finance time spent on production, not insight
The most expensive resource in the Finance team is applied to the least valuable activity.
Frame 03 of 05
Power BI connected to Oracle Fusion eliminates the lag at source.
  • The moment month-end journals post, the dashboard refreshes automatically
  • No SmartView extraction. No Excel reformatting. No manual distribution.
  • Finance time shifts from production to interpretation: the work that actually matters
Time to insight
T+0. Real time. Every time.
The data is always current. The conversation about what it means can start immediately.
Frame 04 of 05
Dashboard design should answer the questions leaders actually ask.
  • Are we on track against budget and forecast?
  • What are the material variances and what is driving them?
  • What does the current position imply for the year-end outturn?
Design principle
Structure the output around decisions, not data
Every page of the dashboard should answer a question a decision-maker is already asking.
Frame 05 of 05
One well-designed dashboard becomes the institutional blueprint.
  • A model built for one faculty or directorate is replicable across all faculties and professional services
  • The Excel-fed commentary model keeps narrative close to the people who understand the numbers
  • The Finance Leadership Team can set a consistent reporting standard across the institution from one template
Scale effect
Build once. Deploy everywhere.
Replicable in any institution running Oracle Fusion, SAP, or a comparable ERP with a Power BI licence.
The Standard
Error 1: Discount Rate
Error 2: Options
Error 3: Optimism Bias
Why It Matters Now
Frame 01 of 05
Governors now expect Green Book rigour. Most appraisals do not deliver it.
  • HM Treasury Green Book is the standard framework for public and publicly-funded investment appraisal
  • UK universities are expected to apply it to major capital decisions: and most do not apply it correctly
  • The four most common errors consistently overstate NPV and understate risk
The standard
3.5% real discount rate. Full-life appraisal. Options analysis. Optimism bias.
Four requirements. Most university appraisals satisfy two or three. Governors are starting to notice.
Frame 02 of 05
Mixing nominal cash flows with a real discount rate overstates NPV every time.
  • The Green Book rate of 3.5% is a real rate: apply it only to cash flows expressed in constant prices
  • Applying it to nominal cash flows (which include inflation) produces an inflated NPV figure
  • The error is systematic: every year of future cash flows is slightly overstated, compounding over a 30-year appraisal
The fix
Strip inflation from cash flows before applying the discount rate
Or use a nominal discount rate on nominal cash flows. Never mix the two.
Frame 03 of 05
An appraisal with only one option is a justification, not an appraisal.
  • The Green Book requires a do-nothing baseline, a do-minimum option, and the preferred option at minimum
  • Where only the preferred option appears, the appraisal has started from the answer rather than the question
  • Audit committees and governors are increasingly identifying single-option submissions as governance failures
The test
If the preferred option always wins, the options are not real
A genuine options appraisal produces a result that sometimes changes the recommended course of action.
Frame 04 of 05
Optimism bias of 24% to 51% on capital cost is required. Almost no-one applies it.
  • The Green Book mandates an uplift on capital cost estimates at early project stages to account for systematic underestimation
  • For standard building projects: 24% to 51% uplift depending on project maturity
  • Omitting this produces NPV figures that are materially overstated: governors are approving projects on incorrect data
Typical adjustment
+24% to +51% on capital cost at RIBA Stage 1
Most projects come in over budget. The Green Book is designed to account for this. Apply it.
Frame 05 of 05
In a constrained environment, a flawed appraisal is not a technicality. It is a governance failure.
  • Every major capital commitment represents a real opportunity cost against a finite and shrinking capital budget
  • Governing bodies and audit committees are asking harder questions than they were when income was growing
  • Institutions that cannot demonstrate a robust, Green Book-consistent appraisal face both internal challenge and external scrutiny
The standard to set
Every major capital bid: four Green Book requirements, all satisfied
It is not more work. It is the same work done correctly.
The Blind Spot
The Model
What It Reveals
Strategic Decisions
The Blueprint
Frame 01 of 05
Universities approve programmes without knowing what they cost to deliver.
  • Cost is allocated at department or faculty level: individual programme cost is invisible
  • Income is tracked at programme level but cost is not: cross-subsidy is unmanaged and unmeasured
  • Decisions about which programmes to grow, protect, or close are made without the data to make them well
The information gap
Income visible. Cost invisible. Margin unknown.
Every programme portfolio has profitable programmes subsidising loss-making ones. Most Finance teams cannot see which is which.
Frame 02 of 05
A star schema model disaggregates faculty cost to programme title.
  • Power Query and Power Pivot in Excel builds a dimensional model: cost pools, cost drivers, programme attributes
  • DAX measures calculate programme-level unit cost, contribution margin, and staff-to-student ratio
  • Reconciliation against the TRAC return ensures the model is consistent with the regulatory position
Technical approach
Star schema. Activity-based drivers. TRAC-reconciled.
Built entirely within Excel using Power Query and Power Pivot. No additional software licensing required.
Frame 03 of 05
The model reveals three things the portfolio review cannot see without it.
  • Which programmes generate a genuine financial contribution and which consume it
  • Where the cost per student is structurally too high to be sustainable at any reasonable fee level
  • Which departments are being asked to cross-subsidise others: visibly, with a number attached
Typical finding
20% to 30% of programmes are loss-making at full cost
Most institutions know this is true. The model tells you which 20% to 30% it is.
Frame 04 of 05
Full cost visibility changes the strategic decisions available to leadership.
  • Portfolio rationalisation: close or restructure programmes with no path to financial sustainability
  • Pricing decisions: fee waivers and alumni discounts modelled against actual delivery cost, not budgeted average
  • Recruitment investment: direct marketing spend toward programmes with the highest contribution margin
Decision quality
From assumption to evidence
Strategic decisions about the programme portfolio move from instinct-based to cost-evidence-based.
Frame 05 of 05
One faculty model becomes the institutional blueprint.
  • The methodology developed for one faculty is replicable across all faculties using the same model structure
  • A cascading dropdown dashboard allows non-finance leaders to interrogate their own programme data
  • The Scorecard tab produces a single-page view suitable for presentation to the University Executive Board
Scale path
One faculty. Then all faculties. Then full institution.
The pilot model is the production model. The methodology does not change as it scales.
Strategy

Strategic Proposals for UK Higher Education.

Original frameworks for how UK universities can respond to the structural, financial, and competitive pressures facing the sector.

01
TRAC and ABC Transformation
02
Centre for Family Business Management
03
PBSA as an Institutional Investment Asset
04
Student-Led Real Estate Investment Fund
05
Campus Data Integration
TRAC & Costing
TRAC as FP&A: Moving beyond compliance to strategic cost intelligence
Activity-based costing as a financial planning and portfolio review tool, not just a regulatory return.
The Strategic Case
ABC Hierarchy Model
Allocation Flow
Portfolio Review
Key Benefits

Most UK universities treat the TRAC return as a compliance exercise something to complete annually and file with OfS. This misses the point entirely. The cost allocation methodology that sits behind TRAC is one of the most powerful financial planning tools available to a university finance team, and almost no institution uses it that way.

TRAC forces a university to answer a question that most never ask clearly: what does it actually cost to deliver each activity Teaching, Research, and Other when central overhead is allocated on a defensible, evidence-based basis? The answer to that question has direct implications for pricing, portfolio decisions, and investment allocation.

Why this matters now

The financial pressure on UK universities is forcing a reckoning with cross-subsidies that have existed for decades. Teaching income subsidising research. Popular programmes subsidising expensive niche programmes. Central professional services growing without accountability to the activities they support. Activity-based costing the methodology TRAC uses makes those cross-subsidies visible and measurable. Once visible, they become manageable.

Four-level hierarchy

The ABC model organises cost allocation in four levels: cost pool categorisation, cost driver assignment, allocation to TRAC activities, and institutional disaggregation to faculty and programme level.

H1: Cost Pool Categorisation
Group all central costs by nature: estates, IT, HR, academic support, governance. Each pool has different consumption patterns.
H2: Cost Driver Assignment
Assign drivers reflecting actual consumption: FTE, space m², student headcount, academic workload activity split.
H3: Allocation to Activities
Distribute costs to Teaching, Research, and Other based on each driver's measured consumption data.
H4: Institutional Disaggregation
Break activity costs to Faculty, Department, and Programme level. This is where financial intelligence begins.

Fixed and variable cost flows

Fixed costs estates, depreciation, central services flow through broad activity drivers reflecting structural consumption. Variable costs consumables, direct academic support flow through intensity-based drivers reflecting actual usage.

The resulting cost profile aligns with TRAC regulatory requirements and simultaneously reveals the true economic margin of each university activity. The same methodology that produces the regulatory return produces the management information.

Key outcome
A single allocation model that satisfies both OfS/UKRI reporting requirements and internal financial planning with no reconciliation gap between the two.

Disaggregation to portfolio level

Hierarchy 4 disaggregates TRAC activity costs to Faculty, Department, and Programme level, enabling contribution analysis at the most granular level the data supports.

Loss leaders
Programmes with negative contribution once full overhead allocation is applied. Candidates for restructuring, repricing, or strategic support decisions.
Cash cows
Programmes generating positive contribution at full economic cost. Candidates for investment to grow volume or protect market position.

This enables portfolio prioritisation decisions, identification of cross-subsidies, and evidence-based resource allocation all from the same methodology that produces the regulatory TRAC return.

Behavioural change
Transparent cost allocation creates direct financial incentives for departments to optimise their own resource usage space, staff time, professional services.
Strategic alignment
Investment decisions align with strategy by directing resources toward activities with positive contribution or defined strategic importance.
Financial accountability
Clear contribution metrics at Faculty, Department, and Programme level that governors can scrutinise against a consistent, auditable framework.
Sustainable growth
New initiatives must cover their full economic cost before proceeding, preventing structural deficits from cross-subsidies that compound invisibly.
Income Strategy
Centre for Family Business Management: A Strategic Partnership Framework
First-mover opportunity in an uncontested postgraduate niche, generating REF output and a global alumni network simultaneously.
Strategic Opportunity
Why Candidates Choose CFBM
Programme Design
Research and REF
Roadmap
Zero
UK competitors in this category
Global
Premium family-funded cohort
REF
Eligible research built into Year 2

No UK university currently offers a postgraduate programme specifically designed for second and third-generation family business owners. The CFBM concept is not simply a new programme it is a vehicle for building a global network of family enterprise leaders, positioning the institution as the institution of choice for this segment worldwide.

The gap in the market
Family-owned businesses account for over 70% of global GDP and face succession and governance challenges that generic MBA programmes do not address. The niche is unserved in UK HE.
The real value proposition
Candidates gain a curated network of peer family business owners across sectors and geographies relationships that generate business value for decades beyond the programme.
Peer network access
Cohort introductions to family business owners across sectors and geographies. Relationships that generate commercial value for decades.
Global market entry
Structured peer partnerships open doors to cross-border opportunities, joint ventures, and international agreements unavailable through standard networking.
Succession and legacy
Specialist curriculum in governance, succession planning, family dynamics, and professionalisation unavailable at this depth anywhere in UK HE.
Real business solutions
Businesses benefit from Business Clinic consultancy and academic research partnerships, delivering practical ROI on their programme investment from Year 1.
Year One: Foundation, Network and Business Clinic
Family Business Governance, Strategic Financial Management, Cross-Cultural Leadership, Entrepreneurship and Innovation, Business Clinic integration from semester one.
Year Two: Research, Strategy and Academic Partnerships
Applied Research Project (REF eligible), Academic Research Partnership, Global Family Enterprise Report, Partnership Transition Programme on graduation.

The two-year structure is deliberate. Year 1 builds the network and delivers commercial value to partner businesses through the Business Clinic. Year 2 converts those business relationships into REF-eligible research outputs, creating a compounding return on the institutional investment in each cohort.

Every enrolled CFBM student is a gateway to a Strategic Partnership. Their business surfaces a real challenge. The challenge is matched to academic expertise. Co-designed research produces REF-eligible output an applied report, recommendation, or publishable paper aligned to the REF submission cycle.

REF Impact Cases
Documented economic, social or cultural impact meeting REF criteria generated from real business partnerships with each cohort.
Research Intensity
Each cohort adds REF-eligible outputs across business sub-disciplines, compounding research performance over successive cycles.
PhD Pipeline
High-performing CFBM students progress to PhD study, extending the REF impact narrative for future cycles.
  • Phase 1: Business case finalisation align with stakeholder interests, initiate programme design and PSRB approval.
  • Phase 2: Marketing and recruitment launch initiate marketing campaigns, onboard faculty, set up operational frameworks.
  • Phase 3: Programme launch inaugural cohort recruited, Year 1 Network Labs and Business Clinic briefs activated.
  • Phase 4: Consultancy arm and alumni engagement launch consultancy arm, publish first research outputs, initiate alumni engagement plan.
Capital Strategy
PBSA x GradMatch: Transforming Student Accommodation into Employability Hubs
A £10m investment model that merges purpose-built student accommodation with AI-powered career services, employer partnerships, and living-learning infrastructure.
The Vision
Student Experience
Business Model
Investment Rationale
Roadmap and Risks
£10m
Total fund commitment to GradMatch PBSA
£7m
Infrastructure Career Hubs, AI tech, co-working
£3m
AI career services and employer digital platform

GradMatch x PBSA revolutionises the traditional purpose-built student accommodation model into a vibrant living-learning ecosystem. Rather than treating student housing as a passive infrastructure asset, this model embeds career services, employer networks, and AI-driven learning directly into the accommodation environment.

The five strategic pillars of the model are: integration of living and learning, enhancement of student experience, improvement of employability outcomes, promotion of financial sustainability, and alignment with institutional strategic delivery plans.

What this is not
A passive rental asset generating accommodation income alone. The GradMatch model treats PBSA as active educational infrastructure with measurable employability outcomes.
What this is
A career-integrated living environment where students access job-matching, mentorship, employer networking, and AI-curated skills development from within their accommodation.

Living: Career integration at the point of residence

The PBSA environment is structured around six student-facing pillars. Real-time job matching and career coaching are delivered via in-room digital portals. Alumni mentorship and employer-sponsored internships are available on demand. AI-curated skills workshops are tailored to each resident. Peer-led career clubs and hackathons use communal PBSA spaces. Entrepreneurship incubation zones support startup ventures. Round-the-clock career counselling and wellbeing support are embedded in the residency.

Learning: Work-integrated academic pathways

Experiential learning is embedded directly in PBSA spaces through real employer projects. Work-integrated projects contribute credits towards degree completion, closing the gap between academic learning and industry application. Industry-led research initiatives align education with market needs. AI-driven career tracking is integrated seamlessly into academic paths, with automated dissertation and internship placement matching.

Transition: From student to professional

Student-facing tools
AI-powered graduate transition programmes, real-time industry job market dashboards, AI-assisted CV and application coaching, personalised job-matching algorithms.
Employer-facing infrastructure
PBSA as a talent marketplace, exclusive employer recruitment hubs, AI-powered recruitment analytics, co-branded corporate residency programmes with partners such as Amazon and Barclays.

Investment structure

The Fund commits £10m toward the expansion of GradMatch-embedded PBSA, structured as a strategic investment in career-integrated educational infrastructure. Of this, £7m is designated for infrastructure development PBSA Career Hubs, AI technology integration, and co-working spaces. The remaining £3m funds AI career services, employer partnerships, and the digital platform connecting students with job opportunities and industry resources.

Revenue streams

Service and subscription income
Service fees from career hubs, subscription models for digital platforms, and licensing of the GradMatch AI platform to participating institutions.
Employer and partnership income
Recruiter access fees from AI-powered corporate engagement platforms, co-branded corporate residency income, and employer-funded internship scheme revenue.

The model generates diversified revenue across accommodation income, career service fees, digital platform subscriptions, and employer partnership receipts making the investment financially sustainable independent of any single income stream.

ESG
Fully ESG-compliant design and operations
AI
AI-powered engagement and career matching
Premium
Higher-yield career-integrated accommodation
Financially sustainable, ESG-compliant
The £10m investment adheres to Environmental, Social, and Governance standards throughout. Living spaces are designed with strong ESG principles, integrating technology to enhance the experience while promoting sustainability.
High-yield accommodation
The model targets premium student accommodation with career-integrated services. Students receive not just housing but valuable career support improving occupancy, retention, and rental premium over standard PBSA.
AI-powered corporate engagement
AI-powered employer platforms generate recruiter access fees, creating a recurring income layer that enhances the financial return on investment beyond accommodation yield alone.

Proven financial sustainability through positive ROI on the premium career-integrated PBSA model. Scalable the investment structure supports future PBSA portfolio expansion as the GradMatch model is validated across sites.

Implementation roadmap

Year 1: Launch and AI integration
Embed GradMatch AI career services within PBSA infrastructure and pilot at one campus. Secure corporate recruitment partnerships for direct student hiring pipelines.
Years 2-3: Expansion
Integrate Career Hubs as standard features in new PBSA developments. Incorporate AI career dashboards into the institutional employability framework. Expand employer-funded internship schemes.
Years 4-5: Scale and leadership
Expand portfolio with AI-driven, ESG-focused student housing. Position the institution as a UK sector leader in career-integrated PBSA. Extend the GradMatch model to partner universities worldwide.

Key risks and mitigations

  • Capital cost and delivery risk (Medium / High): Pilot on one site first. Validate rental premium and occupancy before scaling to additional developments.
  • Corporate sponsorship dependency (Medium / Medium): Diversify employer partners across sector, size, and geography to avoid single-partner concentration.
  • Student data and AI governance (Low / High): Apply institutional data protection and AI-ethics standards to all tools from inception.
Investment Strategy
SLREIF: Student-Led Real Estate Investment Fund
A student-managed fund providing genuine investment experience while financing strategic university capital projects.
Vision
Fund Structure
Academic Integration
Capital Projects
Roadmap
£25m
Initial fund size
10%
Student ownership stake
£100m
Target capacity by Year 5

SLREIF is a student-managed investment fund that provides real experiential learning in real estate and private equity, while financing strategic university capital projects through genuine investment activity. Students own 10% of the fund and manage real capital. No UK institution currently offers this.

The fund targets income-producing real estate assets: purpose-built student accommodation, research laboratories, and co-working spaces. All investments are ESG-aligned from inception, with AI-enhanced market analysis and blockchain-verified governance.

Subscription model
Students own 10%, managing real capital in real transactions under expert supervision.
Income real estate focus
PBSA, research laboratories, co-working spaces assets with contractual income streams.
ESG-aligned
Sustainability embedded from inception to attract impact-oriented institutional co-investors.
AI and blockchain
AI market analysis improves investment decision quality. Blockchain-verified governance for stakeholder transparency.

SLREIF enables genuinely unique academic programmes that no competitor offers: an MSc Real Estate Investment where students manage live fund activity, an MBA ESG Asset Management track, micro-credentials in blockchain finance and ESG compliance, and global secondments in London, New York, and Dubai through fund partnerships.

No UK institution offers this
Students managing real capital in real transactions as part of their academic programme is genuinely unique in UK higher education.
Alumni network moat
Institutions entering first build a network in real estate and private equity that becomes their own competitive advantage for decades.

The fund commits £10m toward research facility construction and expansion sustainable energy systems and research laboratories giving students oversight of a real institutional-scale capital commitment. A further £10m is committed to STEM laboratory spaces, generating measurable fund returns while directly funding research capability.

Co-branded industry training programmes with sector partners create research-industry collaboration generating commercial income alongside REF-eligible academic output.

£20m committed to strategic research infrastructure
Total capital deployed to university research and STEM projects by fund Year 2.
  • Year 1: Finalise fund structure and governance. Secure initial investments. Launch academic modules aligned with fund activities.
  • Years 2-3: Incorporate research facility projects. Diversify investment portfolio. Initiate global partnerships.
  • Years 4-5: Increase fund capacity to £100m through institutional investor partnerships. Target £12m annually generated.
Estates Finance
Campus Data Integration: Cost Transparency and Space Insight
A unified data framework replacing fragmented estates systems building-level cost visibility, EPM and TRAC compatible, 26-week delivery.
The Problem
The Solution
Technical Design
Five-Phase Delivery
Expected Outcomes
Fragmented data sources
Data spread across EMS, ServiceNow, and CBRE with no single accurate version of the truth. Manual reconciliation consumes significant finance and estates staff time.
No building-level cost visibility
Costs tracked at aggregate level only. Square-metre allocation reduces financial accuracy and prevents defensible space pricing or value-for-money evaluation.
Weak link to strategy
No mechanism to assess whether resource allocation is contributing to the Estate Delivery Plan objectives. Investment decisions lack an evidential base.
No activity-to-space mapping
Without visibility on what activity each space is used for, it is impossible to align estate assets with future teaching, research, and student service requirements.

The solution introduces analysis codes on the finance chart of accounts for each building, plus five new activity codes to classify maintenance and operational activities precisely. All three estates systems are connected through those unified codes eliminating manual reconciliation.

Building and activity coding
Analysis codes added to EMS database, auto-populating in ServiceNow on ticket creation and feeding CBRE reporting through building identifiers.
Unified dashboard
A centralised dashboard consolidating all data sources. Single source of truth for cost analysis, space activity mapping, and maintenance planning. EPM and TRAC compatible.

EMS Database → ServiceNow (auto-populates codes on ticket creation) → CBRE Reports (linked via building identifiers) → Unified Dashboard (single source of truth).

Templates developed
Facilities and Estates Annual Plan template, fabric and structural PPM template, fixed asset register linked to building and analysis codes.
System compatibility
EPM compatible via CSV exports, TRAC module leveraged for overhead allocation, activity codes aligned to TRAC Teaching, Research, and Other categories.
  • Phase 1 (2 weeks): Finalise and apply building-based analysis codes in EMS, ServiceNow, and CBRE templates.
  • Phase 2 (6 weeks): Design templates for lifecycle costing, fabric PPMs, and the fixed asset register.
  • Phase 3 (9 weeks): Create and test unified dashboard with full EPM compatibility and TRAC alignment.
  • Phase 4 (5 weeks): Pilot on selected buildings, refine outputs, fix errors before full rollout.
  • Phase 5 (4 weeks): Estate-wide rollout, training sessions, and full documentation.

Total delivery: 26 weeks. 255 hours total commitment across Finance, Campus Services, and IT.

Building-level cost visibility
Precise cost attribution by building and activity. Evidence-based allocations replacing square-metre assumptions. Supports TRAC overhead allocation.
Lifecycle and maintenance planning
Integrated planned and reactive maintenance data. Proactive lifecycle forecasting based on actual performance data rather than assumptions.
Capital investment decisions
Accurate Capex and Opex data for business case development. Total cost of ownership modelling for new and existing projects.
Financial planning alignment
Strengthened forecasting and variance analysis. Operational and strategic budgets aligned with estate maintenance priorities and the Estate Delivery Plan.
Expertise

The capabilities I bring to complex situations.

TRAC and Regulatory
OfS TRAC Return UKRI self-assessment Condition of the Estates External audit liaison Sector benchmarking OfS Benchmarking Analysis FRS 102 and HE SORP Cost driver design
Financial Modelling
DCF, NPV, IRR, MIRR, PI Sensitivity analysis Green Book appraisal Activity-based costing Burn-rate forecasting Overhead allocation Research portfolio valuation Options appraisal
Strategy (UK HE)
Income diversification Programme financial modelling Commercial pricing Research prioritisation Medium-term financial planning Capital Finance Capital investment governance Cost optimisation
Technology and Systems
Oracle Fusion ERP COA design and ERP restructure Excel, VBA, Power Query ServiceNow governance
SAP Finance
Power BI
FP&A and Partnering
Finance business partnering Management reporting Variance analysis Board and committee papers Estates financial assessment FP&A transformation
Sector Knowledge
OfS and UKRI landscape HE governance structures RGCI and REF strategy Research England returns HE SORP and AFR
Estates Finance
Newsletter

Stay across the thinking.

New articles, strategy frameworks, and sector analysis delivered to your inbox. No frequency commitments only when there is something worth reading.

Covers new Insights articles, Strategy frameworks, and What-If analyses. Unsubscribe any time.

Thank you. You will receive new publications, insights, and strategies by email as they are released.
Contact

Get in touch.

I work across capital project appraisal, financial modelling, FP&A transformation, and finance business partnering in UK higher education. If you are working on a problem in any of these areas and want to talk it through, I am happy to connect.

Open to advisory, consultancy, and interim engagements with HE institutions and HE-adjacent organisations.

Book a conversation
Schedule a call
Choose a time that works for you. 30-minute introductory calls available.

I will reply within one business day with available slots. All conversations are confidential.

✓
Request received
I will be in touch within one business day with available times. Looking forward to the conversation.